Message Hash: 41f96a8fd3b6c66efa6d2e000e4b8285c957aece306c3ef029120d2f34ce2ee9
Message ID: <199407022210.PAA24462@jobe.shell.portal.com>
Reply To: N/A
UTC Datetime: 1994-07-02 22:09:16 UTC
Raw Date: Sat, 2 Jul 94 15:09:16 PDT
From: email@example.com Date: Sat, 2 Jul 94 15:09:16 PDT To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Clipper = Bobbitized Crypto Message-ID: <199407022210.PAA24462@jobe.shell.portal.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain > I'm not so kind as others on this list. > I think people should live consistent with their philosophy and > what they advocate. Many times arguments are useless and only > experience serves to convince. I wouldn't try to convert another > from their faith just because it would do me good. As long as > it's possible to find alternate methods of doing the same thing > (in this case achieving privacy), I wouldn't try too hard to save > Liberals from themselves. I think they deserve to use Clipper. Consistency with one's own philosophy, huh? I dont see much of that in liberal politics, although maybe to be fair it should be applied to politics in general. Let me cite some examples: 1.) Anti-gun politicians who would regulate away the average citizen's right to self-defense with firearms, but only after they are assured of Secret Service protection, or private bodyguards for themselves. IOW, a level of personal security not affordable to their constituency. Clipper is the personal security equivalent of having to call 911 when threatened and patiently wait for the police to show up to protect you, vs. having a small army of Secret Service agents on call 24 hours a day to spring into action to defend you. 2.) Politicians who accept campaign contributions from teachers' unions, the National Education Association, etc., who vote down any legislation designed to give the average citizen a choice in their child's education, other than the entrenched public school monopoly. Yet, most of these same people put their own kids in PRIVATE schools, financed from tax dollars by the salaries that we pay them. 3.) Politicians who already employ strong crypto, unavailable to the general public, who want to limit the rest of us to "Clipper". All three points apply directly to Clinton, but not exclusively to him, of course. You know, there's just something about the name "Clipper" that conjures up pictures of Lorena Bobbitt... Maybe that's what Clipper really is ... Bobbitized crypto... <g> Anyway, back to your point, the average "liberal on the street" may indeed be stuck with Clipper. And as long as Washington DC is dominated by a single party with a liberal bent, maybe they can convince the rest of their "fellow travellers" that "Big Brother loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life", and thus to accept Clipper and its host of problems. But let liberals lose control of this country, and then watch them change their tune, when the Big Brother technology they put in place is now in the hands of "the other side". Does anyone remember 20+ years ago when the roles were reversed? It was the liberals who were protesting wiretaps, etc. by the Nixon administration? Putting a liberal in the White House somehow "blesses" these same things?