V FOR VENDETTA ... the movie (or is it)

, last night I was searching for something to watch. TV is soooo lacking in entertainment, so I went through my movies and decided to watch the movie "V for Vendetta" again.



Although I loved the movie when I first watched it, it was simply entertainment. But, as I re-watched this movie, I could not help making so many connections between what was going on in the movie "V" and what is going on within the government of the (US)A - my government.



In my younger days, I 'believed' that the gov''t was: 'For', 'By' and 'Of the People'. Now, as I am a bit older, I've changed my belief. I NOW believe that the gov''t: 'Uses', 'Takes' and 'Screws the People' ........ the people the gov''t is supposed to protect.



And to quote from the movie "V for Vendetta": " THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE AFRAID OF THEIR GOVERNMENT ........ THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE AFRAID OF THE PEOPLE."



Katrina, the hurricane, really did make it totally clear to all americans that we are not to rely on our gov''t for help in any way - when disaster strikes. For it just may be that they are responsible for the disaster. Maybe it's a game to see how different types of disasters are played out. Like watching a movie, wondering how it will end, we-the-people are the government's "movie". Who knows........

Here are a couple of articles in part:

http://harpers.org/archive/2007/08/hbc-90000742

The Boot is Descending
by Scott Horton

(snip)...

This weekend something of tremendous consequence happened. The attitude of the Bush Administration will likely be mirrored by that of the Democratic leadership: this is nothing, tend to your own work, just move along. The media will dish up some more Paris Hilton prolefeed (let’s call it by its proper, Orwellian name). But what happened was very important–another massive sledgehammer blow was taken to the foundations of our democratic institutions. And it was a thoroughly bi-partisan effort.

Here’s what occurred. The Bush Administration sought an amendment of FISA to overcome roadblocks that the FISA court threw in its way. It put its case to Congress in secret and sent its national intelligence czar to negotiate a deal. When he concluded an agreement, Bush rejected it. The White House replied with threats, essentially stating that as soon as another terrorist attack occurs, we will pin the blame on Democrats in Congress because of their failure to amend FISA to give us what we want.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

and then there is this article

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/137727-Bush+signs+new+Wiretapping+Law%2C+no+warrants+needed

Bush Signs New Wiretapping Law - No Warrants Needed
by James Risen of the NY Times, Sunday, August 5, 2007

President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.

Congressional aides and others familiar with the details of the law said that its impact went far beyond the small fixes that administration officials had said were needed to gather information about foreign terrorists. They said seemingly subtle changes in legislative language would sharply alter the legal limits on the government's ability to monitor millions of phone calls and e-mail messages going in and out of the United States.

Comment: As evidenced by this new legislation, and once again by Gonzales' verbal squirming in recent Senate testimony, this administration and its minions hide their actions and true intentions behind a web of deceit. For lack of truth, governments develop the language of ambiguity, the interpretation of which is constantly altered to fit the end.

Truth has no need for crafty words and deceit.

They also said that the new law for the first time provided a legal framework for much of the surveillance without warrants that was being conducted in secret by the National Security Agency and outside the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the 1978 law that is supposed to regulate the way the government can listen to the private communications of American citizens.

"This more or less legalizes the N.S.A. program," said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies in Washington, who has studied the new legislation.

Previously, the government needed search warrants approved by a special intelligence court to eavesdrop on telephone conversations, e-mail messages and other electronic communications between individuals inside the United States and people overseas, if the government conducted the surveillance inside the United States.

Today, most international telephone conversations to and from the United States are conducted over fiber-optic cables, and the most efficient way for the government to eavesdrop on them is to latch on to giant telecommunications switches located in the United States.

By changing the legal definition of what is considered "electronic surveillance," the new law allows the government to eavesdrop on those conversations without warrants - latching on to those giant switches - as long as the target of the government's surveillance is "reasonably believed" to be overseas.

For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.'s target is the person in London.......................

you can read the rest at the website.

So, when you are on the telephone, don't make an 'oopsie' and say the wrong word. That word can be taken out of context and used against you. Think I'm paranoid. Well, yes, I guess now I am.

Can you feel the 'boot' coming down on your head (or does it start with your wallet?).

~ The Mediator