This is topic CCTV / The nanny state UK in forum Politics/Religion/Current Affairs at The Geek Culture Forums!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.geekculture.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000172

Posted by londonmacgeek (Member # 10038) on August 06, 2007, 18:49:
 
Recently, there has been much press regarding our over use of CCTV here in the UK. It has come to pass that Britain is the most spied upon society in the EU, it is possible to be watched travelling from London to Manchester on CCTV cameras, and never enter a blind spot. Following this, fears of an Orwellian 'Nanny State' have emerged amongst the public. Our government seems to really like telling us how to exist, television commercials constantly remind us that the health department recommends eating five portions of fruit and vegetable a day (I think this is good advice personally, but I'm not sure I like being told so by Gordon Brown)
Another issue of contraversy is the Smoking ban that has been passed in England, which prohibits smoking in any public space (I personally do not smoke, so this does not affect me) and there have been complaints that this is a violation of our civil liberties.
What are your oppinions on the 'Nanny State UK'?
 
Posted by business attire (Member # 6102) on August 07, 2007, 06:23:
 
It sounds like you're turning into us.

Our televisions tell us to eat 2 servings of fruit and 3 servings of vegetables every day. And a lot of public places are smoking prohibited too. Mainly in California and New York I think.

The CCTV thing is definitely weird. And I don't think any American would stand for it. But the rest of it? I don't think its a big deal.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on August 07, 2007, 06:59:
 
business attire wrote:
The CCTV thing is definitely weird. And I don't think any American would stand for it.

So.... you're saying we shouldn't have installed those pinhole cameras in your bathroom?
 
Posted by business attire (Member # 6102) on August 07, 2007, 07:03:
 
yes. That is exactly what I am saying.
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on August 07, 2007, 07:39:
 
We are not talking about a CCTV camera behind a two way mirror in your bedroom. What would you do in front of a CCTV camera that you don't want people to see. These cameras are in public places.

I am not using the "if you don't have anythiong to hide what are you afraid about" argument here.

I am using the "you're in a goddamn public place for crying out load, how much privacy do you expect?" argument.

And if my goverment does place a camera in my living room, I'll just start to walk around naked. It won't be too long before they turn the camera off.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on August 07, 2007, 08:29:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
And if my goverment does place a camera in my living room, I'll just start to walk around naked. It won't be too long before they turn the camera off.

Bwahahaha. Same here. I used that very same tactic last month with the domestic spies in my apartments.

There are lost of places that have begun to use video surveillance. Currently I see them at traffic lights and places of that type. So it will not be a huge leap before they begin to do that in other public places.

I really don't care for it at all. But I will bet my last dollar that no one will raise much of a stink over it. Sure there will be some griping, but not enough to change anything. Soon people, very soon.

So who will be your brother's keeper? And who will watch those that watch?
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on August 07, 2007, 09:00:
 
business attire wrote:
yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

Party pooper [Razz]
 
Posted by Ugh, MightyClub (Member # 3112) on August 07, 2007, 09:44:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
business attire wrote:
yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

Party pooper [Razz]

Well, if that's what turns you on...

The problem with CCTV in public places is that it's a slippery slope. "Who cares, it's a public place", we say. "There is no privacy anyway." So we get desensitized to the cameras on the corners. Then more cameras show up. And we get desensitized again. And again. And again. Where does it end? This is why we have to draw a line, stand up and say, "Absolutely not!"

Another double-edged sword is that cameras remember everything they see. And then someone views the video and misinterperates what they see. I mean, come on, what spungo was doing with that sheep in the bus terminal was entirely innocent!

Sorry, that's the best I can do for a lunchtime argument.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on August 07, 2007, 12:17:
 
Eh... I'd probably get a bigger thrill out of watching a fully clothed BA typing away at her computer or playing a video game.

I'm funny that way.
 
Posted by business attire (Member # 6102) on August 07, 2007, 12:49:
 
as long as I was doing something with my hands...
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on August 07, 2007, 13:24:
 
*adjusts his halo*
 
Posted by dragonman97 (Member # 780) on August 07, 2007, 16:01:
 
quote:
Originally posted by business attire:
as long as I was doing something with my hands...

/me remembers an old GC thread...I don't think that'd be necessary, actually. [Razz]
 
Posted by Serenak (Member # 2950) on August 07, 2007, 18:19:
 
here in the UK we are spied on and listened to and generally bullied by a nanny state in a way that actually makes Orwell's 1984 look positively like a walk in the park... ok so they are not quite watching us through our TVs yet (as far as I can tell...) but i is not far off..

Like from now on I have to get documentation to prove to my child's Headmaster (principal) that I should have "special dispensation" to take my holidays outside the "approved" times...

I was sorry to say I lived under the sad misconception I lived in a free country... fsck knows why... I have known for many years that the Orwellian nightmare was nowhere near the far worse truth.. and so did he...

They can watch me all they like and they can take away my right to choose my holidays... to smoke and drink alcohol but at least atm they leave my thoughts alone... or maybe not
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on August 07, 2007, 18:34:
 
dragonman97:
I don't think that'd be necessary, actually. [Razz]

Well, if I'm going to stare at her, she might as well not be bored so it's necessary. Tooooootally necessary. [Smile]
 
Posted by Ashitaka (Member # 4924) on August 08, 2007, 00:13:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Serenak:
here in the UK we are spied on and listened to and generally bullied by a nanny state in a way that actually makes Orwell's 1984 look positively like a walk in the park... ok so they are not quite watching us through our TVs yet (as far as I can tell...) but i is not far off..

Like from now on I have to get documentation to prove to my child's Headmaster (principal) that I should have "special dispensation" to take my holidays outside the "approved" times...


1st

Why is it when everyone references a 1984 state is it about the goverment spying on people. Yes big brother spied on people but that was the least of the problems of the citizens of 1984. Big brother would torture it's citizens until they loved big brother. They would dictate who could mate with who. Big Brother restricted language. Why is Big Brother always seen as the goverment that spied, and not as the government that torured? The next " big brother program on the TV should be a house where all the widely differing personalities are torured until they are all they same. That would be a Big Brother house.


2nd

I agree with you about the vacation (holiday) having to be approved by the principle(headmaster, unless you vacation at disney world.

sorry about the lenght

post scriptum

I know why people see big brother as the government that spied. It is because they have never read the book.
 
Posted by Rhonwyyn (Member # 2854) on August 08, 2007, 05:03:
 
Serenak, Do you mean to say you ask for permission during the summer or during the school year? Getting permission during the school year to pull your child out of school for a family vacation is totally de rigeur. Depending on what's going on in school (testing that can't be made up, etc.), missing school may not be in the student's best interest.

My school allowed students to be pulled out, but only for educational trips. We had to submit projects after we returned that showed what we learned on vacation. We were also required to turn in the same homework our classmates completed while we were away so that we wouldn't fall behind.
 
Posted by supaboy (Member # 183) on August 08, 2007, 05:35:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
business attire wrote:
The CCTV thing is definitely weird. And I don't think any American would stand for it.

So.... you're saying we shouldn't have installed those pinhole cameras in your bathroom?

If there's a hidden camera in a woman's bathroom, there's a good chance she's not standing for it.
 
Posted by business attire (Member # 6102) on August 08, 2007, 05:48:
 
quote:
Originally posted by supaboy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steen:
business attire wrote:
The CCTV thing is definitely weird. And I don't think any American would stand for it.

So.... you're saying we shouldn't have installed those pinhole cameras in your bathroom?

If there's a hidden camera in a woman's bathroom, there's a good chance she's not standing for it.
hahaha! It's funny because women sit down when they pee!
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on August 08, 2007, 09:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ashitaka:
Why is it when everyone references a 1984 state is it about the goverment spying on people. Yes big brother spied on people but that was the least of the problems of the citizens of 1984. Big brother would torture it's citizens until they loved big brother. They would dictate who could mate with who. Big Brother restricted language. Why is Big Brother always seen as the goverment that spied, and not as the government that torured? The next " big brother program on the TV should be a house where all the widely differing personalities are torured until they are all they same. That would be a Big Brother house.

I know why people see big brother as the government that spied. It is because they have never read the book.

Or perhaps they are just thinking of the most famous line in the book: "Big Brother is watching you".

Besides, torture is not the primary method of control used in the book. It's a back-up method of enforcing compliance when propaganda and intimidation have failed to produce the desired results.
 
Posted by fs (Member # 1181) on August 09, 2007, 03:28:
 
quote:
Originally posted by londonmacgeek:
Our government seems to really like telling us how to exist, television commercials constantly remind us that the health department recommends eating five portions of fruit and vegetable a day (I think this is good advice personally, but I'm not sure I like being told so by Gordon Brown)

I don't think advertising it counts as nanny-state. It would be nanny-state if they started mandating veggie consumption.

quote:
Originally posted by londonmacgeek:
Another issue of contraversy is the Smoking ban that has been passed in England, which prohibits smoking in any public space (I personally do not smoke, so this does not affect me) and there have been complaints that this is a violation of our civil liberties.

Also not nanny-state, no matter what smokers think. What about the "civil liberty" of non-smokers not to breath second hand smoke? That trumps the right of someone to have a drug habit. (I used to smoke, btw, so I'm fully aquainted with the peculiar selfishness of the smoker that assumes that the desire to have a cigarette is somehow on par with the desire of other people not to.)

Neither of those two examples support your argument.
 
Posted by londonmacgeek (Member # 10038) on August 09, 2007, 17:07:
 
I must agree with you, I find having to inhale hydrogen cyanide when waiting for a train an un-pallatable experience. I was mearley trying to stir oppinion.
 
Posted by maximile (Member # 3446) on August 10, 2007, 12:38:
 
I think there should be as many cameras in public as the government feels necessary. I also think that they should work hard to make the feed from the cameras public.

I don't know why, really. But Penn Jillette says so, and I think he's awesome in every way, so I do too.
 
Posted by Serenak (Member # 2950) on August 10, 2007, 17:44:
 
I think we should all start memorising our favourite books - because when the govt's start burning them a-la Farenheit 451 some people are gonna be very sorry they laughed...

To paraphrase a well know quote... "when they came for the Jews I did nothing, for I am not Jewish, when they came for the "persons of colour" I did nothing, for I am not "of colour", when they came for the intellectuals I did nothing... for I am no intellectual, and now they have come for me and my books and my computer... and who will speak for me and my freedoms? NO ONE - because no one is left to do it...."

Paranoid... maybe - but they watch me on the streets, they monitor my every financial transaction, they are training our children to "rat us out" in a "Cultural Revolution" style for smoking or drinking or eating red meat or not taking 5 portions of fruit and veg a day...

I would rather be paranoid than "sorry after the fact"
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on August 10, 2007, 20:26:
 
Well said bro.

I am paraphrasing here. But I recently saw a quote from Lenny Bruce that went something to the effect of...

If you can't say "fuck", you can't say "fuck the government."
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on August 10, 2007, 20:50:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Serenak:
I would rather be paranoid than "sorry after the fact"

Your seditious comments have been noted.
 
Posted by ASM65816 (Member # 712) on August 12, 2007, 11:18:
 
quote:
August 10, 2007, 17:44
I would rather be paranoid than "sorry after the fact"

[Confused]   Did you mean:  

quote:
... paranoid ...
Does "paranoid" mean believing "they" are out to get you when:  
FYI: If you think someone is "out to get you" because they make death threats against you and make repeated attempts to harm you, that's called "accepting reality."
 
Posted by Serenak (Member # 2950) on August 12, 2007, 15:53:
 
I am afraid you missed the point ASM...

In this instance I am less afraid of the "muslim/moslem/islamist fundamentalist loons" that haunt your dreams than the Saville Row suited soft tongued "soothsayers" that take away our freedoms one at a time in order to better "protect us" from said bogeymen...

Sure the suicide bombers and their insane "god told me to do it" friends are scary... KKK is scary... IRA and the other Irish paramilitary organisations are scary... ETA is scary - loons on a mission from god are just scary - PERIOD...

But you know what? We have a lot more to be frightened of in the "sneak in the back door" removal of our rights and privileges done by the men in smart suits with silver tongues "for our own good and protection" Knowledge is power... and we have far too much of the former for their liking - and you know what? To a large portion of the "control the nation" fearmongers you, me, KP, Shroom and all the rest of us are "freethinking radicals" who should be gagged, bound and eliminated...

We may never agree on a single point but this one - our right to seek out and disseminate information "as we see it"

I don't agree with a lot of what you say... I don't agree with a lot of what KP says... I sometimes agree or disagree with any/all the posters here (and hopefully vice versa) - but I totally support their right to do it... and I hope that whether or not they agree with me they hold the same thing dearest... our right to access information and comment on it "as we see fit" (within the bounds of decency and not disseminating "Hate" at least)

Take it from me - the quiet men in sharp suits are far far more dangerous to you and me and everyone else on this board than any loon that is prepared to kill themselves and 100 innocent people for "the cause" - no matter how frightful a human tragedy that is - because the "quiet men's" plan will lead to totalitarianism or a new dark ages.

Oh and fwiw I have known, and do still know, people who were/are high up in the UK Civil Service and when some of them are "concerned" at where policy is going you know it is not a good place...

That is my paranoia... take it or leave it - I will defend my right (and everyone else's for that matter) against this "creeping death" till they take me away or put me in the ground because it scares me a hell of a lot more than "terrorists" or "paedophiles" or "climate change" or "cancer" or the next pandemic of "Bird Flu" or any other thing - and not just for me but for my kids and yours and every other poster's on this board and many others....

Remember only one thing from history if you must... supporters of and agitators for revolutions are often the first to suffer the consequences of the "purge" that follows - Just ask Trotsky!!!

Oh and btw I still consider a lot of those other "threats" (the ones they like to throw up as the bogeymen we need to give up our rights to fight) as just that - straw bogeys to scare the "little people" into "doing the right thing" without thought or care for the consequences... if that makes me a paranoid I am happy to be one...
 
Posted by fs (Member # 1181) on August 13, 2007, 01:23:
 
Ben agrees with Serenak, too:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
 
Posted by Sxeptomaniac (Member # 3698) on August 13, 2007, 10:51:
 
quote:
Originally posted by fs:
Ben agrees with Serenak, too:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

While I think that the quote makes an important point, it is somewhat simplistic. The very nature of government is that it is the relinquishment of freedoms in return for security. However, I definitely believe that those who decide that they must have safety at all costs will only destroy their freedom.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on August 13, 2007, 11:00:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sxeptomaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by fs:
Ben agrees with Serenak, too:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

While I think that the quote makes an important point, it is somewhat simplistic. The very nature of government is that it is the relinquishment of freedoms in return for security. However, I definitely believe that those who decide that they must have safety at all costs will only destroy their freedom.
But it is way to easy to use the guise of safety and security as a weapon to control the masses.

And men and women without honor will do so with not so much as a twinge of guilt. And anymore I doubt the that the honorable have survived in the modern ages.

See such as how maximile mentioned how he thought it was a good idea. Not to put words in his mouth whatsoever, but the general argument is "You will only worry if you are doing wrong." There is truth to this. I am not embarrassed by my actions in public, but this still does not mean that I condone the taping and archiving of my movements and actions for indeterminate amounts of time, by parties that are nameless and faceless.

I do not want safety in trade for my freedoms. It sounds more like a booby prize.
 
Posted by maximile (Member # 3446) on August 13, 2007, 11:16:
 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
...
See such as how maximile mentioned how he thought it was a good idea. Not to put words in his mouth whatsoever, but the general argument is "You will only worry if you are doing wrong."

I don't think that's what I meant, really. My point is that I'd be comfortable with it, but only if the video captured from the cameras was available to the public at the same time as it was available to the government. That way people could complain if they noticed that the cameras were becoming too invasive, and I think it would be a fascinating public asset.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on August 13, 2007, 11:24:
 
Not sure how that is much better.

1 or 1000. To have the ability to watch a person's every move still sounds like a poor trade.

But thanks for the clarification, max. I have just heard that particular argument about so many of these types of things that it seems almost like a de facto line. Makes me wonder if they have already won...

And if that is the case, how much are we gonna lose?
 
Posted by maximile (Member # 3446) on August 13, 2007, 12:49:
 
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
Not sure how that is much better.

1 or 1000. To have the ability to watch a person's every move still sounds like a poor trade.

I think it's waaay better. It brings it down to the level of public webcams, or those Google Maps street views. I love those; I think they're a fantastic use of technology. The things I don't like are the ones I can't use for myself; I can't be sure they're not looking into my house.

But actually, I think you might be right. However much I claim to be a libertarian, I think I do take some secret comfort in the idea that I'm not doing anything wrong. But I don't think that's my reasoning here. I just think it'd be cool to watch what's going on, and if the government don't do it then Google or the public will do it soon enough anyway.
 
Posted by CommanderShroom (Member # 2097) on August 13, 2007, 14:14:
 
quote:
Originally posted by maximile:
quote:
Originally posted by CommanderShroom:
Not sure how that is much better.

1 or 1000. To have the ability to watch a person's every move still sounds like a poor trade.

I think it's waaay better. It brings it down to the level of public webcams, or those Google Maps street views. I love those; I think they're a fantastic use of technology.
I guess that is a point where you and I veer heavily.

I also can be safe in the fact that I do nothing horribly wrong. (Not like there isn't one of us that has not shot through a light at the last second, etc.) But I value what little bits of privacy I have greatly. And each of these items, to me, seem to take that away. All of which unnerve me greatly. Sadly enough, much of it I have no say over. And that worries me even more.

While I am truly fascinated by the tech involved, I am equally concerned about what these 'advances' may detract from us. Does it make our world truly better? Does the convenience come at a price that I can live with?

Many people disagree with me, and that is their right. But like the saying goes, "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't after you."
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on August 13, 2007, 14:50:
 
quote:
Originally posted by fs:
Ben agrees with Serenak, too:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

Snakey right on the button as usual.

In the UK aside from some internments, we didn't give up these freedoms when we were being bombed by the Nazis. We didn't give them up when we were being bombed by the IRA, (financed of course by the good ols US of A). 9/11 was dreadful and tragic and just like Pearl Harbour it woke up an insulated and inward looking America. But unlike Pearl harbour there is no enemy you can go and punch out. You are fighting shadows. Instead the US is behaving like a brainless drunk woken by a kick to the head, who then takes a swing at anything that swims into vision because it makes him feel better.

And the really stupid thing is that giving up our freedoms and acting like paranoid rabbits gives the terrorists the most enormous morale boost, encouraging them to believe they are winning, and confirming them in their belief that our society is decadent and believes in nothing, and that all this fancy rhetoric about democracy and freedom means nothing when the chips are down. And you know what - if we carry on like this they are absolutely right.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on August 13, 2007, 15:19:
 
Callipygous wrote:
In the UK aside from some internments, we didn't give up these freedoms when we were being bombed by the Nazis. We didn't give them up when we were being bombed by the IRA, (financed of course by the good ols US of A). 9/11 was dreadful and tragic and just like Pearl Harbour it woke up an insulated and inward looking America. But unlike Pearl harbour there is no enemy you can go and punch out. You are fighting shadows. Instead the US is behaving like a brainless drunk woken by a kick to the head, who then takes a swing at anything that swims into vision because it makes him feel better.

Erm... well, on behalf of the gold ol' US of A, I would like to apologize for installing all those CCTV cameras as we staggered around brainless and drunk?

Ahh... and for stumbling through that inter-dimensional rift back to the 70s and 80s when we forced the UK to start experimenting with CCTV monitoring.

Oh, and that report in 1994 ("CCTV: Looking out for You") that said that CCTV systems reduced crime in areas they were installed in that really got the initiative rolling? Yeah... that was us. We just said it was written by your government. We're bastards like that when we're drunk.

I'm glad we had this chance to set history straight and explain how our reaction to an event in 2001 had such dramatic effects on you all.

So um... sorry about that. Our bad. We'll buy you a beer next time you're in town and we'll call it even.
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on August 13, 2007, 19:44:
 
Steen sorry if my post was ambiguous, I did not mean to say the US was removing our freedoms. We've followed in your shadow into this stupid war on terror of our own free will. Your government may be stupid like a drunk or a baby, but it's not malicious. Not that a baby with your military capabilities is any less frightening than an overtly evil regime. Obviously over here the responsibility lies first with our government and ultimately with an apathetic and ignorant electorate. If as it appears, we here are more interested in Big Brother than politics, that's exactly what we'll get.
 
Posted by Steen (Member # 170) on August 13, 2007, 20:45:
 
Callipygous:
Your government may be stupid like a drunk or a baby, but it's not malicious.

I don't know about that. Our goverment policies are increasingly dictated by the lobbyists who work on behalf of special interest groups. The most effective of those tend to be corporate interests and most of the resulting policies are aimed at improving the profitability of those corporations without regard to the well being of humanity and the environment.

While the overall appearance may be one of stupidity, I have no doubt that there are many very intelligent people who are not looking at the ramifications of what they're doing as they focus their intelligence on the isolated task they've been given.

If it was just stupidity, we could hand them Nintendo DSs with Nintendogs to distract them while we fixed everything *sigh*
</tangent>
 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on August 15, 2007, 03:55:
 
Among the neocons there are many able and highly intelligent men with very impressive academic careers, let alone qualifications. They were the driving force behind possibly the stupidest war in history, that nearly all the rest of us ordinary mortals could plainly see would end in the mess it is now. Some ideas are so brain crushingly stupid that only the most rarified of intellectuals can entertain them. Extreme cleverness and quite heroic levels of stupidity are very compatible.
 
Posted by The Famous Druid (Member # 1769) on August 15, 2007, 04:56:
 
quote:
Originally posted by Callipygous:
They were the driving force behind possibly the stupidest war in history, that nearly all the rest of us ordinary mortals could plainly see would end in the mess it is now. Some ideas are so brain crushingly stupid that only the most rarified of intellectuals can entertain them. Extreme cleverness and quite heroic levels of stupidity are very compatible.

Not stupidity, arrogance.

Have a look at their pre-war estimates of how the war would go.
Quick summary:
1. Invade Iraq.
2. Bask in the adulation of a grateful Iraqi public.
3. Reduce troop numbers to 5,000 by December 2006


Now have a look at this New Scientist article
quote:
From TFA:
Overconfidence is a disadvantage in war, finds study

Overconfident people are more likely to wage war but fare worse in the ensuing battles, a new study suggests...


...Players who made higher-than-average predictions of their performance – those who had higher confidence - were more likely to carry out unprovoked attacks. These warmongers ranked themselves on average at number 60 out of the 200 players, while those who avoided war averaged out at the 75 position.

A further analysis showed that people with higher self-rankings ended up worse off at the end of the game...

...“One wishes that members of the Bush administration had known about this research before they initiated invasion of Iraq three years ago,” he adds. “I think it would be fair to say that the general opinion of political scientists is that the Bush administration was overconfident of victory, and that the Iraq war is a debacle.”


 
Posted by Callipygous (Member # 2071) on August 15, 2007, 15:05:
 
I don't think any of us are really disagreeing with each other here. These are all different ways of looking at the same situation.

I do however recall that before the invasion, once I realised that our governments did not know something we did not, that not only was I appalled, but also just utterly mystified as to how any intelligent person with the slightest grasp of history could imagine this might work. Later I discovered that the neocons had developed a radically different theory about the fundamental ideological conflicts that they argued was the driver of post WW2 history, and this let them ignore all common sense and the obvious lessons of Vietnam etc.

But you are also right Druid, it is an old story, one the ancient Greeks would have recognised well, how Hubris is inevitably followed by his dark twin Nemesis.
 


© 2018 Geek Culture

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.4.0