Broken Arrow

Didn't Craig fire "Uncle Howard"?

Unfortunately, what you excerpted was not a quote from the author, it was a quote from Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee. Her boss is Senator Jay Rockefeller, the chairman of that committee. Sort of puts the expert in context a bit, doesn't it?

Had you read the text of the bill, which I took the time to link, you would find the following in it:

SEC. 18. CYBERSECURITY RESPONSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITY.

(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network;

(5) shall direct the periodic mapping of Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks, and shall develop metrics to measure the effectiveness of the mapping process;

(6) may order the disconnection of any Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information systems or networks in the interest of national security;

By the way, you may have noticed a term "cybersecurity emergency" and the term "United States critical infrastructure information systems."

The term "cybersecurity emergency" is not defined in this bill, so if the bill becomes law as is, that means that the President, through the National Institute of Standards and Technology (part of the Department of Commerce) will have to define it for you. However, the term "United States critical infrastructure information systems" is defined as follows (Section 23):

(3) FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNITED STATES CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS- The term `Federal Government and United States critical infrastructure information systems and networks' includes--

(A) Federal Government information systems and networks; and

(B) State, local, and nongovernmental information systems and networks in the United States designated by the President as critical infrastructure information systems and networks.

So what does all of this mean:

1) The President can declare any information system and network in the United States to be a critical infrastructure system and network. (Section 23(3)(B) ). This could include Citibank's information systems, Boeing's information systems, Qwest's network, Verizon's network, thePlanet.com hosting service, or even AOL. It's not defined in law; therefore, it may be defined through regulation or through executive order.

2) The President may declare a "cybersecurity emergency" at his discretion (there are no limitations as to when he may do this or not in the bill) and may order the limitation or disconnection of any Internet traffic to or from any network he defines as "critical" in 1) above.

3) The President is directed to map the topology of any network or information system defined as "critical" above.

4) The President does not even require a "cybersecurity emergency" to disconnect a network or information system declared as such in 1) above. He can do so at his sole discretion for national security purposes. What is a "national security purpose?" The President determines that.

Chances are that major Internet backbone providers, major financial houses, major chemical / petroleum processors, and major defense contractors' networks will be those that are identified as "critical." But here's a key concept to wrap your arms around: the term "critical infrastructure" is not defined in law. It is defined by a Presidential Decision Directive (the current definition is in PDD-63, signed in 1998, by B.J. Clinton). The term can thus be redefined by the President at his convenience. Chances are it wouldn't be, but it could be.

I am one who opposed the creation of DHS. I also opposed the creation of the position of Director of National Intelligence (with budgetary authority over all intelligence agencies in the government). These were both created during the Bush administration. I also opposed the passage of the Patriot Act, when it was passed as a permanent measure.

The reason why is that it concentrated too much power in one spot -- power that could be gravely abused.

I take it, since the ONE quote you decided to pull from that article was a quote from the deputy communications director for the person who introduced the bill, I will assume that you have no problem with giving Mr. Obama that amount of power.

But let me ask you: would you have wanted Richard Nixon to have that amount of power? Or if Tricky Dicky is before your time, would you feel totally comfortable giving Dick Cheney that much power?

If your answer is anything but an enthusiastic "yes," then I'd submit that this is a bad piece of law. Because your guy will not always be in office. That might make me a conspiracy buff. Or it might make me somebody who actually reads the law.

FWIW/YMMV

VAT A COUNTRY!! Land of the free and home of the attorneys!! In the words of Steve Miller..."somebody give me a cheeseburger!"

was that really the last "demon"?

what if you found out EVERYTHING you believed was for lack of better words, "wrong"..

I had something like that happen..

I think I know what you're saying. For me it was more than just my being wrong about certain doctrines, but being wrong, in same cases very wrong, about my entire approach to life. This included parenting, marriage and vocational. Mentally I was living in a fantasy world and that type of thinking needed to be challenged. I've been "out" for 26 years.

Thanks for digging up that info. That's helpful.

The link that was provided gave a decent breakdown of how people get appointed to the FCC. Ultimately it will be political appointees deciding who is being fair and who isn't. It would open a potential nightmare of claims that a broadcaster didn't go as far as the claimant wanted in attempting to be fair. Eventually a broadcaster could decide that airing controversial subjects isn't worth the hassle. That may not actually happen, but someone wanting to shut up someone else would have wide open avenue for doing so.

You're right. The framework would certainly be in place. I just can't see how anyone, even Uncle Sam could "shut down" the Internet.

Oh, we were taught to goose step, alright----only it was mental not physical

True.

Over my bloody dead corpse.

They'll have no problem with that.

As far as who decides who is on the FCC, I'm pretty sure it's the President with Congressional approval. As far as whether Greasespot would be ended, I'm not even sure the Internet is on the radar right now, it's more aimed at radio and television. That is not to say it couldn't be targeted. The Fairness Doctrine states that you have to present an alternative point of view and Greasespot provides that. No offense, and I don't think anyone will be offended, GSC is small potatoes for the U.S. Gov and so is TWI. It'll be awhile before we get their attention. Sometimes small is good. The U.S. Gov. wants people who are exposing their stuff

I think the logic was that VP was "our father in the Word". H.E. "Harry" Wierwille was his brother so therefore that made him our uncle. They were calling him that when I entered the scene in '74 so I don't know when it started.

By the way, does "Der Fuhrer" translate into English as "The Father?" I'm seeing some parallels here. I'm surprised we were never taught to "Goose Step" in the Corps. Maybe they were teaching that in "devotion with motion" and it just got by me.

Who determines what is "fair"?

The FCC I guess.

VPW died about a month after I had cancer surgery. My family had to come in from out of town and help with my kids as no one from TWI was "available" to help. Fortunately, no one from TWI came right out and told me I was possessed; they just stayed away.

That's awful! I'm sorry to hear you were treated that way and that was wrong.

Naaaaa--why should things be "fair"?

Who brought up this question WorldNetDaily?

It'd figure

Oh, no...it's definitely out there and there is talk in Congress about instituting a "Fairness Doctrine". It's all over talk radio and not by a bunch of right wing "nut fringe groups". It seems there are those who think the general public is too stupid to weigh the facts on their own.

I contracted cancer myself in 1987 and I was a Corps Grad. I felt a great deal of shame and really questioned my worth as a leader and my effectiveness as a believer. "How could I, a Corps Grad, allow myself to get possessed?" I thought. In fact, I delayed getting examined because I didn't want to face facts. I was ashamed to tell others including family members and fellow Corps. Everyone in TWI was nice to me, at least to my face. I wasn't aware that VPW had died of cancer. I am completely cancer free (praise God!), but it took quite awhile for me to pull myself together emotionally. It shook me to the core. I finally had to face the fact that VPW was actually wrong about something. Later I found out that he himself had died of cancer 2 years prior.

So, yes. This doctrine did a lot of damage at least to me and I would imagine lot of other people. It makes sense, but I wasn't aware that others were blamed for VP's illness, that is, outside of POP. I think I heard somewhere that the in-residence Corps at the time was yelled at for allowing the MOG to die "on their watch". Is that true?

When I left, I was afraid something bad might happen because I was no longer "abundantally sharing" to HQ. I gave money to a guy who was starting an offshoot. Shortly following I was in a minor car accident (no injuries). I was sure it was because I didn't give my money to HQ and I felt guilty. Of course, I didn't even consider that it could have had something to do with the fact that my mind was in the clouds at the time and I ran a red light. So, I began sending my money to the "proper place" again and realized that sometimes bad things happened anyway. I still tithe, but now it's just because I want to help my church out. I don't do it to bring good luck or to ward off bad luck.

Mssr. Erk,

My criticism of "Biblical Research" really has nothing to do with the average person who desires to read and/or study it, but the apparently deeprooted idea that there's some sort of wealth of secret knowledge to be unlocked there if we only avail ourselves of the right teacher or the revolutionary new curriculum. I dare say that, if after the 2 millenia or so that the texts have been scoured over, inside and out, upside and down, preceived from every imaginable viewpoint, that if there's anything really new or enlightening to be gleaned from the text, the author must have gone to extreme lengths to make the contents as inscrutable as possible. That hardly seems reasonable, does it?

Can you think of a passage, a word, or even a syllable of Biblical text that hasn't been analyzed to death by now? Doesn't it seem just a little bit arrogant to think that any meaning we may ferret out of some text must have been glossed over - or missed entirely - by the many thousands of people who poured over texts (often much closer to "original" source material than we have today), and maybe even dedicated their entire lives to their study?

And to answer your other points, no I can't think of any subject thats been as overworked as the Bible. Maybe the Q'ran or the Bhagavagita, or The Book of the Dead or some other "holy" writ gets similar attention in countries that follow those dogmas, and if so, it's equally misguided.

I guess it's still a sore subject for me when I look back at all the wasted years chasing after some sort of enlightenment from the pack of Bible thumpers that were The WAY's management. What did we get for all that time checking concordances, interlinears, listening to tapes and attending the endless classes and "fellowships"? What?

I can't think of a thing. It was simply a waste of life. We might as well have been Michael Jackson groupies or somesuch. Or maybe we coulda become diehard conspiracy theorists, 9-11 Truthers per chance? They've got all that secret knowledge too, you know...

After reading your clarification, I fully agree. I apparently misunderstood your point. My apologies.

I think this particular comparison is a bit oblique.

We (musicians) don't play Beethoven, Mozart and Bach because we want to come to a greater "understanding" of them or because we think we may have "misinterpreted" a specific passage. We play their works, ultimately, because they have the ability to evoke an emotional response that touches the human psyche in a way that is both universal and timeless. Of course, students of said composers do play their works with a view toward broader understanding but that is only a means to the stated end. And, unlike the bible business, these works are open to a certain degree of "private interpretation". There is no "one and only" true way to interpret their many nuances.

So, we don't play them to discover what they sounds like. We play them because we already know what they sounds like and we want to be a part of the effect it evokes. You could probably apply the same logic to a local bar band playing well worn "covers".

My comparison may be oblique. My comments were in response to someone who, at least to me, was criticizing Bible study itself. He seemed to be criticizing Jews and Christians to dedicating so much time to studying what they believe is Truth because the writings had been around for so long. My argument is that it makes at least as much sense to study ancient writings as it does to study any ancient work be it art, literature, history or whatever.

But since you brought it up, I think you musicians do play works of the masters to come to a greater understanding of them. At least in the context of getting in touch with the emotion the master composer was trying to convey and then of course...convey it. In addition (I realize I am now getting etherial) one might use certain music (i.e. baroque) to get in touch with the emotions inside one's self. Also, it would seem to me that if one wanted to become a master composer, they would be foolish to not learn the masters. The same holds true with all of the arts, that is, literature, visual arts, and the like. I hope that eliminates at least some of my "obliqueness".

You might be interested in reading, The End of Biblical Studies by Hector Avalos.

The End of Biblical Studies

I read the link and I find it interesting how so many apply one standard to the Bible and Christianity and then another to everything else. Why isn't this esteemed professor calling for end of studying the Q'ran, or the Kuma Sutra, or the works of Buddha for the same reasons. I'm getting a bit off topic so let me bring it back.

These splinter groups are simply regurgitating an interpretation (some would say a perversion) of the Bible. Personally I think they're trying to re-live their glory days as youths. They're simply offering the same stuff repackaged and it's pathetic, really, as well as very sad.

However, that is not to be confused with legitimate Bible study or for seeking truth within the Bible. Many find comfort, encouragement and peace through Bible study even after all these centuries.

Did VPW or LCM or ANYONE (for that matter) ever actually have a "revelation" that came to pass?

When I was in rez LCM said that country music was dead and that the center was going to shift from Nashville to Austin. That was crucial information for moving the Word Over the World. It also never came to pass. That's the only "foretelling" type of thing I can recall him saying.

Now that I think of it, Wierwille was good at talking about things that had already happened and saying he foresaw it. He was pretty slick about it. I would think at the time that maybe I just missed the meeting where he claimed to have said it. I mean, there were over 100,000 people. How was one to check up on that?

Does it ever occur to anyone (other than me, I guess), that maybe, just maybe, there's a finite amount of wisdom that can be gleaned from The Bible? What, 66 books, a lot of which are nothing more than letters - and not even particularly long letters, and the Jewish and Christian communities have dedicated CENTURIES, nay MILLENNIA, and untold resources, Universities, Institutes, countless committees and groups, and even more individuals, to examining every jot and tittle (quite literally) of this one manuscript? You'd think that maybe we'd have gotten a handle on it by now, wouldn't you? But NOOOOOO!

We have to have a whole bunch more pencil-necked geeks to instruct us in what The Bible REALLY says! And, evidently, we need more every few days!

Oh Gawd, it's all so lame...

Do you feel the same way about the works of Shakespeare, Homer, Plato, Socrates? How about the art of Michaelangelo? You know, Beethoven, Mozart and Bach have been played a lot over the centuries. I wonder why musicians continue to play their music? I mean, after all, don't we all know what it's supposed to sound like what with recordings and all. One book about Abraham Lincoln should suffice don't you think? And for crying out loud, how many more movies do we need about WWII? Hey people, America won..o.k.? Oh Gawd, it's all so lame...Let's get on to more important things like video games, drive-thru cheeseburgers and what college football team will finish number 1.

suurrre. Lotsa things..

even as we speak, the Pope in full dress is parked out of Boston Harbor, conversing with his staff and making terms with the locals to pull off a new inquisition..

In a rented aircraft carrier, right?

So with all these splinter groups rising up, are there really any new people being added to the "flock" so to speak? It seems to me that all of this splintering is just a re-shuffling of ex-twi grads. These people are getting older by the day which means eventually TWI and all its splinters are soon to die off, probably in the next 20 years.

So...do you think these guys get together and get all teary-eyed as they reminisce about their "father in the Word"?

This has little to do with how our family runs and everything to do with crass people running off at the mouth when they don't get their way.

We've been involved with our church for over 12 years and when I've told someone no on his behalf (because I know that's what he'd tell them), no one has ever suggested that my husband needed to grow a pair.

Perhaps that's because the people you go to church with are...what's the word?...polite! People saying things like, "...he needs to grow a pair" are just further evidence of how controlling twi wanted to be. One just shouldn't say stuff like that to someone, it's just plain rude and insulting!

Oh, they were even making squirrel tacos . . . supposedly very good . . .

Oh man! Squirrels are rodents! You might as well eat a rat. Squirrels are "tree rats".

Like all things twi.....more hoops were continually added to the "training" process.

Take pfal....then intermediate....and later, the advanced class to be "fully instructed." THEN.....you really need to take other "advanced studies" classes ie The Renewed Mind, Witnessing and Undershepherding, The Way Tree, Keys to Biblical Research, Dealing with the Adversary, etc.

Go WOW.....grow 10 years in 1 year. You've got to go, to know.

Go WOW again....this time, do it better. Do it right.

Go Corps....spiritual training for God's best twig coordinators. Upon graduation, go forth to serve.

BUT......many 3rd, 4th and 5th corps were "invited" back for another inresidence block. Wierwille wanted these selected corps grads to take part in all inresidence activities....to be zealous for all things twi. Yet, on several occasions, wierwille expressed disgust and contempt towards certain individual corps grads......who, according to him, were slothful and unappreciative of this "invite."

Years later.....martindale expected ALL CORPS GRADS to sit thru weekly corps meetings, submit reports and attend all branch/limb meetings, etc. If one didn't jump thru all the hoops......the corps grad status was withdrawn and one was labeled "corps alumni."

Even as early as 1978, wierwille had to strong-arm some corps grads to "stay committed to his directives." He was clearly not happy with some corps/clergy that were "spreading their wings and flying away." IMO.....it had everything to do with REALITIES OF LIFE......marriage, kids, career, home mortgage, career advancements, neighbors, community, etc......and wierwille could no longer CONTROL their decisions.

Let us not forget the year we "broke VP's heart" when so many left after Corps Week but prior to the Rock of Ages. "If you can stand with me at the Rock of Ages, don't bother coming to Corps Week either". (Some said, "Okay, I won't!")

there were reasons why wierwille kept "inviting" corps grads back for an inresidence block. Was the indoctrination wearing off? Yessirree.

That's a very good point, Skyrider. I had not considered that. You're probably right.