Re: Greetings from your friendly, neighborhood, TERRORIST!

[Peter R.]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> "You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.

Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
military personnel?

On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

--
Peter

[C J Campbell]

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > "You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.
>
> Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
> public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
> military personnel?
>
> On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

None whatsoever. Nor did he have authority to take pictures.

[John Harlow]

Were you in a "no parking" zone?

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Nomen Nescio ]> said:
>So, now, Folks, .....somewhere in Washington, in some little file, there
>are probably
>twenty seven 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph
>on the back of each one explaining what each one was, to be used as
>evidence against
>me.

But you can get anything you want at Barnes Airport. Except freedom.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Real Time, adj.:
Here and now, as opposed to fake time, which only occurs there
and then.

[Ronald Gardner]

I'd tell him to go get his Col. and bring him out to me so I could explain the US
Constitution to him and ask him what law I was braking. After 27 years in the military the
one thing I know is that someone sent him out who probably doesn't have a clue as to what
they have legal authority over. Demanding to see the commander at the fence would either
shut them right up, or you would find out there was a no local ordinance. I'd bet on him
leaving and not coming back.

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.
> My wife and I had been hiking in the hills at the foot of the Berkshires and
> and when we got back to the car we decided to stop at Barnes Airport (KBAF)
> and hang out watching the planes, for a while, and cool off after the hike. So
> we parked on the side of the road next to rnwy 20, sat on the tailgate and sipped
> on a soda as the planes came and went, as we have done intermittently for over
> 3 decades. After 1/2 hour, a camo Hummer pulled out of the Air National Guard
> base (on the other side of the airport) and came toward us. It pulled up to the
> fence next to us. G.I. Joe sat there for a minute doing whatever (chambering a
> round in his 9mm?), then got out and informed us that "You can't stay there!".
> "We're just having a soda and watching the planes", I said. He repeated "You
> can't stay there!". "I've been coming to this spot for over 30 years, damn, 9/11's
> got you guys pretty edgy, huh. I'm a pilot and I've flown in here more times than
> I can count". "You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly. "Is there any
> place, around here, where it's OK to sit and watch the planes?", my wife asked.
> "Not here.......there's a place to watch the planes at Bradley" (KBDL....20 miles away,
> I know the place off rnwy 6......perfect spot to lob a Stinger Missile up the ass of
> a 747 on takeoff), "but you can't stay here".
> Realizing the futility of further discussion, I said, "OK, we're outta here". I closed up
> the tailgate of the Tahoe and he went back to his Hummer. My wife and I climbed in,
> and we started driving off. A 1/2 mile down the road my wife says, "You know, he was
> taking pictures of you as you were closing the tailgate".
> "Oh, ****"
> So, now, Folks, .....somewhere in Washington, in some little file, there are probably
> twenty seven 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph
> on the back of each one explaining what each one was, to be used as evidence against
> me.
> The next airline trip should be fun......can you say "Cavity Search"!
>
> Hoping you all stay out of the database.
>
> Later,
> Osama Bin Buttf**ked
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBQViq3ZMoscYxZNI5AQFvSAP+PzQLeqqToOyr3EESDF Q7RV3ct0c44PtQ
> 4jeBn1ToYEPj9ItyOJ/+f2HmEuMeU53GqY/s0pBDUfBWiCZ2/jfDJxCokk7DqXex
> G5sgMnFnBRfjou934D8P9FXXACOggvr6zf9TFBCX8t1Zxv3rEK w5exlex1IKYu5u
> ufZqoXqoids=
> =L2BM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Bob Fry]

> during peacetime

Haven't you heard? We're at war. We'll know when it's over when
Dumya tells us.

Osama Bin Forgotton

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, Nomen Nescio ]> said:
>Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.

At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge while
black. See http://69.93.170.43/



--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Why are we hiding from the police, mommy?"
"Because we use vi, dear, and they use emacs."

[Steve Foley]

What authority is needed to take pictures?

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter R." > wrote in message
> ...
> > Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >
> > > "You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.
> >
> > Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
> > public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
> > military personnel?
> >
> > On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?
>
> None whatsoever. Nor did he have authority to take pictures.
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Steve Foley" > wrote in message
...
> What authority is needed to take pictures?
>

There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures of
you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being taken
as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
privacy laws are very strict indeed. Courts have held that celebrities must
have a lower expectation of privacy, but even then the celeb's image cannot
be used to promote a product or service without permission. After all, the
only real asset many celebrities have is their image, and it is not fair to
allow just anyone to make commercial use of it.

[Montblack]

("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
> At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge while
> black. See http://69.93.170.43/


"My dear fellow! This isn't Spain ... this is England!"
A Man For All Seasons (1966)
Winner of six Academy Awards - including Best Picture

Montblack

[C J Campbell]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
.. .
> ("Paul Tomblin" wrote)
> > At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge while
> > black. See http://69.93.170.43/
>
>
> "My dear fellow! This isn't Spain ... this is England!"
> A Man For All Seasons (1966)
> Winner of six Academy Awards - including Best Picture

One of the best movies ever made, though a lot of people think it is boring.

[Otis McNatt]

Peter R. > wrote in message >...
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> > "You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.
>
> Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
> public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
> military personnel?
>
> On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?

Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? I did, much to my chagrin.

--
O.M.

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> Peter R. > wrote:
>
> > Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
> > public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
> > military personnel?
>
>
> can you say 'Patriot Act'?

The Patriot Act requires no such thing.

[C J Campbell]

"Otis McNatt" > wrote in message
om...
> Peter R. > wrote in message
>...
> > Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >
> > > "You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.
> >
> > Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens on
> > public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
> > military personnel?
> >
> > On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?
>
> Did you vote for George W. Bush in 2000? I did, much to my chagrin.

Ah, if you voted for Bush, then military personnel have a right to order you
around. I suppose if you vote for Kerry this election and he wins, then
military personnel will have the right to order Democrats around.

BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction put
in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has not
gone far enough?

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction put
> in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has not
> gone far enough?

He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a fact of
life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the effect on
businesses and individuals is minimized."

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
> > > > Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US citizens
on
> > > > public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
> > > > military personnel?
> > >
> > >
> > > can you say 'Patriot Act'?
> >
> > The Patriot Act requires no such thing.
>
> with the Patriot Act the authorities in the US can do almost whatever they
want.

Baloney.

[C J Campbell]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
> > in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
> > gone far enough?
>
> He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
> life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
> businesses and individuals is minimized."

Reminiscent of Bush saying that we should just continue to go about our
daily business.

[C Kingsbury]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
> > in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
> > gone far enough?
>
> He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
> life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
> businesses and individuals is minimized."

Which means... what exactly? That he feels our pain but isn't going to
change anything?

-cwk.

[C Kingsbury]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.

Guess I get to be the lone voice of dissent here.

In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand loonies
out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG base.
Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy. Sounds
like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
that's not his first order of business.

And yes, I do know that of which I speak. I was grounded for three months
after 9/11 because of the massive BOS-NYC-DC TFRs that no one cared to
explain.

If we get hit again at home, and with the election right around the corner
there's plenty of reason to be on guard, we might lose everything. How about
a DC-style ADIZ over every single Class B? Mandatory flight plans for
everything? FAA can't handle it, tough ****, they'll just have a lottery for
VFR departure slots on weekends. What makes you think your non-pilot
neighbors won't surrender your freedom to fly without a second thought?

Don't get me wrong- I think the TSA is a mess and the current airline
security system, which is still the tagrte we need to worry the most about,
is a sickening morass of bureaucratic incompetence. So at best you've got a
marginal case to make that the ANG guy who harassed you should have been at
BDL searching peoples' carry-ons instead, or at the container terminal in
Boston. That's about it.

Best,
-cwk.

[Peter R.]

C, I see a disparity between this:

> In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand loonies
> out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
> maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
> now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG base.
> Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy. Sounds
> like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
> that's not his first order of business.
<snip>

And this:

> What makes you think your non-pilot neighbors won't surrender your freedom
> to fly without a second thought?

You probably don't mean it, but my interpretation is that your first
paragraph above is justifying what your second statement (removing the
"to fly") is condemning.

--
Peter

[Dudley Henriques]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>>
>> BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security
>> restriction put
>> in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush
>> has not
>> gone far enough?
>
> He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is
> now a fact of
> life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that
> the effect on
> businesses and individuals is minimized."

You have to just LOVE these ambigious statements from politicians that
say nothing....achieve nothing....and insult your intelligence if you
let the statement go unchallanged :-)
"Tell us Mr. Politician, how MUCH increase....and increased over what
base value? And define "minimized" please Mr. Politician.......minimized
to what level........against what base value? Exactly how much domestic
security is in place now over what was there before, and how effective
is that security? Define the exact effects on businesses please?

The plain simple fact that people seem to either ignore or forget when
getting all fired up about national security issues and who's "right's"
will be trampled on is the fact that in a totally free society, there is
no such thing as national security. It's impossible by
definition...period!
Any viable action taken by a government authority that even remotely
begins to address a WORKABLE scenario in a national security context
will mean that government control will replace individual "rights".
It's the classic "you can't have it both ways" thing. You either have
total freedom or you have national security.
Right now in the United States, what we have are politicians desperately
caught between a public they are sworn to defend and who are screaming
at them 24 hours a day to take action that will protect them, and the
same public screaming at them 24 hours a day that the actions they
absolutely must take to even begin to address the national security
issues are violating their individual rights.
The result has been the Patriot Act good or bad, wide open borders, an
attempt at airport security that seems to hassle old ladies more than it
guarantees the capture of terrorists, and a whole gaggle of people on
these newsgroups who, just like the rest of the country, don't
understand that national security and individual rights can't exist on
the same page at the same point in time in a free society.
Argue on for all the good it will do :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Peter Duniho]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.
>
> Guess I get to be the lone voice of dissent here.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand
> loonies
> out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
> maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
> now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG
> base.
> Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy.

So what? Why should we care if he's edgy? Personally, I'd rather my law
enforcement (military or civilian) be a little less jumpy, but if they are,
the solution is not for me (or the original poster) to comply with their
illegitimate requests. Rather, the solution is to fire the jumpy law
enforcement officers and hire ones that have more common sense.

> Sounds
> like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
> that's not his first order of business.

The soldier had no business running the original poster off, unless he was
on military property (it's not clear whether he was or not). Off military
property, the soldier has no authority whatsoever to force someone to leave.
For that matter, even civilian law enforcement would not have that
authority.

A military or civilian law enforcement officer certainly is within their
rights to approach a person they find suspicious and talk to them. If they
ascertain that there is genuine cause for concern, they have legitimate
steps they can take. But that would not have been the case here, and the
officer's only legitimate action at that point would have been to wish the
"suspect" a nice day and get on to doing his job elsewhere.

> And yes, I do know that of which I speak. I was grounded for three months
> after 9/11 because of the massive BOS-NYC-DC TFRs that no one cared to
> explain.

TFRs that were not reasonable, that were not justified, and should have been
criticized loudly. Inasmuch as you sit around claiming that they *were*
reasonable, you deserved to be grounded.

> If we get hit again at home, and with the election right around the corner
> there's plenty of reason to be on guard, we might lose everything.

Everything? That seems a little extreme. How, exactly, do you suggest that
we'd lose literally everything? Near as I can tell, we'd lose very little.
Our government is reasonably well protected from problems even when the "top
brass" is killed. Frankly, while I can't stand to think of anyone being
killed, sometimes I think we could benefit from losing the entire top
echelon of government so we could start over. I certainly don't believe
we'd lose everything, or even close to everything.

> How about
> a DC-style ADIZ over every single Class B? Mandatory flight plans for
> everything? FAA can't handle it, tough ****, they'll just have a lottery
> for
> VFR departure slots on weekends. What makes you think your non-pilot
> neighbors won't surrender your freedom to fly without a second thought?

Of course they will. That's why it's so atrocious that the non-pilot
military guard is illegally harassing a perfectly innocent person. It's
just one more step in the wrong direction.

> Don't get me wrong- I think the TSA is a mess and the current airline
> security system, which is still the tagrte we need to worry the most
> about,
> is a sickening morass of bureaucratic incompetence. So at best you've got
> a
> marginal case to make that the ANG guy who harassed you should have been
> at
> BDL searching peoples' carry-ons instead, or at the container terminal in
> Boston. That's about it.

That's about what? The case is excellent for arguing that the military
guard should have let him stay where he was, watching the planes for as long
as he wanted to.

Pete

[FullName]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, Nomen Nescio
> ]> said:
>>Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.
>
> At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge while
> black. See http://69.93.170.43/
>
>
>

that guy is a nut-ball. he is on the far left frindge of radical
socialists... look at his website...

http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, FullName > said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:
>> At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge while
>> black. See http://69.93.170.43/
>
>that guy is a nut-ball. he is on the far left frindge of radical
>socialists... look at his website...
>http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/

Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your right to
freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I
guess I was wrong.

Being "on the far left frindge(sic) of radical socialists" is not grounds
for being threatened by multiple police just because you took a picture of
a public structure.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"You must be smarter than this stick >---- to put a machine on the
Internet."

[Doug]

Nomen Nescio ]> wrote in
:


Shame people cant have more respect for people that have voulnteered to
fight for our freedoms.

I dont speak to the particulars of this troopers actions but to yours
and your blatent disrespect for him. just because he dosent give a sh*t
about how many log entries you have in your book doesnt mean he dosent
have a job to do.

Maybe we should have him go back to doing the same job he had on sept
10th 2001, sittin at the desk ...I perfer he KEEP doing what he did.



> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.
> My wife and I had been hiking in the hills at the foot of the
> Berkshires and and when we got back to the car we decided to stop at
> Barnes Airport (KBAF) and hang out watching the planes, for a while,
> and cool off after the hike. So we parked on the side of the road next
> to rnwy 20, sat on the tailgate and sipped on a soda as the planes
> came and went, as we have done intermittently for over 3 decades.
> After 1/2 hour, a camo Hummer pulled out of the Air National Guard
> base (on the other side of the airport) and came toward us. It pulled
> up to the fence next to us. G.I. Joe sat there for a minute doing
> whatever (chambering a round in his 9mm?), then got out and informed
> us that "You can't stay there!". "We're just having a soda and
> watching the planes", I said. He repeated "You can't stay there!".
> "I've been coming to this spot for over 30 years, damn, 9/11's got you
> guys pretty edgy, huh. I'm a pilot and I've flown in here more times
> than I can count". "You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly.
> "Is there any place, around here, where it's OK to sit and watch the
> planes?", my wife asked. "Not here.......there's a place to watch the
> planes at Bradley" (KBDL....20 miles away, I know the place off rnwy
> 6......perfect spot to lob a Stinger Missile up the ass of a 747 on
> takeoff), "but you can't stay here". Realizing the futility of further
> discussion, I said, "OK, we're outta here". I closed up the tailgate
> of the Tahoe and he went back to his Hummer. My wife and I climbed in,
> and we started driving off. A 1/2 mile down the road my wife says,
> "You know, he was taking pictures of you as you were closing the
> tailgate". "Oh, ****"
> So, now, Folks, .....somewhere in Washington, in some little file,
> there are probably twenty seven 8x10 color glossy pictures with
> circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining
> what each one was, to be used as evidence against me.
> The next airline trip should be fun......can you say "Cavity Search"!
>
> Hoping you all stay out of the database.
>
> Later,
> Osama Bin Buttf**ked
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"FullName" > wrote in message
...
> that guy is a nut-ball. he is on the far left frindge of radical
> socialists... look at his website...
>
> http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/

I looked. Where's the "far left frindge [sic] of radical socialists"
content? All I could find were legitimate concerns regarding the rampant
loss of civil rights in this country.

[Gary Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What authority is needed to take pictures?
>
> There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
> of
> you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
> taken
> as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
> don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
> privacy laws are very strict indeed.

The law in New York (or anywhere else in the US) prohibits photographing an
unwilling subject in public? That doesn't sound credible. Could you cite the
statute please, or some other source of information concerning it?

--Gary

[Peter R.]

Doug ) wrote:

> Shame people cant have more respect for people that have voulnteered to
> fight for our freedoms.
<snip>

It seems to me that someone, somewhere in the chain of command was
fighting against our freedoms in this particular case.

--
Peter

[Peter Duniho]

"Doug" > wrote in message
...
> Shame people cant have more respect for people that have voulnteered to
> fight for our freedoms.

Respect does not mean blindly obeying. With that respect comes an
expecation that our trust in those people won't be abused. As soon as it is
abused, the respect is no longer deserved.

> I dont speak to the particulars of this troopers actions but to yours
> and your blatent disrespect for him. just because he dosent give a sh*t
> about how many log entries you have in your book doesnt mean he dosent
> have a job to do.

He does have a job to do. That job doesn't involve running off people who
are behaving in a perfectly legal manner.

> Maybe we should have him go back to doing the same job he had on sept
> 10th 2001, sittin at the desk ...I perfer he KEEP doing what he did.

Why? How is what he's doing helping anyone? Maybe you'd prefer that we
simply send a law enforcement team to every residence in the US, searching
for evidence of terrorist activities? That would be the most reliable way
of making us safe, after all, right?

Pete

[John Harlow]

>> that guy is a nut-ball. he is on the far left frindge of radical
>> socialists... look at his website...
>>
>> http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/
>
> I looked. Where's the "far left frindge [sic] of radical socialists"
> content? All I could find were legitimate concerns regarding the
> rampant loss of civil rights in this country.

I'd like to know where you got this too!

[G.R. Patterson III]

FullName wrote:
>
> that guy is a nut-ball. he is on the far left frindge of radical
> socialists... look at his website...

J. Edgar! I thought you were dead!

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
> Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your right to
> freedom of speech,
>

We do, but we got McCain-Feingold anyway.

[John Harlow]

> Shame people cant have more respect for people that have voulnteered
> to fight for our freedoms.

Respect begets respect.

Do you think we should tolerate any level of harrassment arbitrarily forced
upon us the name of freedom?

Talk about irony!

[Jay Beckman]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> You have to just LOVE these ambigious statements from politicians that say
> nothing....achieve nothing....and insult your intelligence if you let the
> statement go unchallanged :-)
> "Tell us Mr. Politician, how MUCH increase....and increased over what base
> value? And define "minimized" please Mr. Politician.......minimized to
> what level........against what base value? Exactly how much domestic
> security is in place now over what was there before, and how effective is
> that security? Define the exact effects on businesses please?
>

<SNIP>

> The result has been the Patriot Act good or bad, wide open borders, an
> attempt at airport security that seems to hassle old ladies more than it
> guarantees the capture of terrorists, and a whole gaggle of people on
> these newsgroups who, just like the rest of the country, don't understand
> that national security and individual rights can't exist on the same page
> at the same point in time in a free society.
> Argue on for all the good it will do :-)
> Dudley Henriques
> International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
> Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired
>
>

Dudley...

I was wondering when someone would point out the near mutual exclusivity of
"Total Security" and "Personal Freedom."

Well said!

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
50.1 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

[Teacherjh]

>>
Personally, I'd rather my law
enforcement (military or civilian) be a little less jumpy, but if they are,
the solution is not for me (or the original poster) to comply with their
illegitimate requests. Rather, the solution is to fire the jumpy law
enforcement officers and hire ones that have more common sense.
<<

The OP does not have the ability to fire jumpy law enforcement officers (at
least not those in question). However, he probably does have a pilot
certificate. It can be revoked at any time without recourse.

I would not bet my certificate that there would be no adverse consequences to
not obeying orders, whether these orders are legit or not. Not in this
country. Not now.

Jose



--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:DRi6d.250177$4o.40412@fed1read01...

> Dudley...
>
> I was wondering when someone would point out the near mutual
> exclusivity of "Total Security" and "Personal Freedom."
>
> Well said!
>
> Jay Beckman
> Student Pilot - KCHD
> 50.1 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

I knew it Jay!! You're a BORN fighter pilot!! ;-)

Dudley

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, (Teacherjh) said:
>I would not bet my certificate that there would be no adverse consequences to
>not obeying orders, whether these orders are legit or not. Not in this
>country. Not now.

Which is about the saddest thing ever.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
The software said it requires Windows 95 or better, so I installed Linux

[Jay Beckman]

"Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
> news:DRi6d.250177$4o.40412@fed1read01...
>
>> Dudley...
>>
>> I was wondering when someone would point out the near mutual exclusivity
>> of "Total Security" and "Personal Freedom."
>>
>> Well said!
>>
>> Jay Beckman
>> Student Pilot - KCHD
>> 50.1 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!
>
> I knew it Jay!! You're a BORN fighter pilot!! ;-)
>
> Dudley

LOL...If only!

I'm barely becoming a "made" spam can driver!

Regards,

Jay

[Dean Wilkinson]

Wow, sounds like the Gestapo is alive an well... can vee haf your
papers?? Vee must haf your papers komrade!


(Paul Tomblin) wrote in message >...
> In a previous article, Nomen Nescio ]> said:
> >Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.
>
> At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge while
> black. See http://69.93.170.43/

[Dudley Henriques]

"Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
news:xfj6d.250183$4o.55855@fed1read01...
> "Dudley Henriques" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Jay Beckman" > wrote in message
>> news:DRi6d.250177$4o.40412@fed1read01...
>>
>>> Dudley...
>>>
>>> I was wondering when someone would point out the near mutual
>>> exclusivity of "Total Security" and "Personal Freedom."
>>>
>>> Well said!
>>>
>>> Jay Beckman
>>> Student Pilot - KCHD
>>> 50.1 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!
>>
>> I knew it Jay!! You're a BORN fighter pilot!! ;-)
>>
>> Dudley
>
> LOL...If only!
>
> I'm barely becoming a "made" spam can driver!
>
> Regards,
>
> Jay

Sounds like you're doing just fine ole' buddy!! It won't be long now!!!
:-)
Dudley

[C Kingsbury]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> ink.net...

>
> > And yes, I do know that of which I speak. I was grounded for three
months
> > after 9/11 because of the massive BOS-NYC-DC TFRs that no one cared to
> > explain.
>
> TFRs that were not reasonable, that were not justified, and should have
been
> criticized loudly. Inasmuch as you sit around claiming that they *were*
> reasonable, you deserved to be grounded.

Let me put it to you this way: how many people three years ago thought we
would make it through to today with not a single domestic attack?

Here's the real problem: the government can't really afford to tell us
everything it knows that decisions are based upon. So we're left to argue in
an atmosphere of highly-politicized misinformation. The TFRs were probably
an extreme over-reaction but sometimes these things are clear only in
hindsight.

From my perspective, the one possible benefit to a Kerry administration
might be to reduce the level of mistrust that's out there, though I suspect
the fever-swamps of the right might just trade places with the Michael Moore
left and indulge themselves in equally ludicrous persecution fantasies. In
WWII the country was effectively united 100% on this issue of winning the
war. Today it is not and the lack of inter-party trust is a key faultline
there, that poses a great threat to our ability to respond effectively.

> > If we get hit again at home, and with the election right around the
corner
> > there's plenty of reason to be on guard, we might lose everything.
>
> Everything? That seems a little extreme. How, exactly, do you suggest
that
> we'd lose literally everything? Near as I can tell, we'd lose very
little.
> Our government is reasonably well protected from problems even when the
"top
> brass" is killed. Frankly, while I can't stand to think of anyone being
> killed, sometimes I think we could benefit from losing the entire top
> echelon of government so we could start over. I certainly don't believe
> we'd lose everything, or even close to everything.

Well, it all depends on magnitude. A dirty bomb that renders a large part of
a major city uninhabitable, or a chemical attack that kills into the
thousands, could be enormously destabilizing to a host of tightly
interconnected systems. The economy would be devastated as it's just now
recovering from 9/11, and this could cause major issues in the global
economy. The price of oil could surge even more, which digs the hole deeper.
Exchange rates could go wacky and upset all kinds of arrangements. A global
depression is a very real possibility.

No, OK, this is not "everything," perhaps I am being a little hyperbolic,
but I think you're being far too blithe about the cost of the kind of
destabilization such an attack entails.

And of course, if we did lose a significant part of the government, or a
very large number of civilians, we could be looking at a lot more war than
just Iraq. To paraphrase an old Navy man, the US has not yet begun to fight.
If the people of this country got well and truly *****ed off* and were
willing to really commit to a no-holds-barred war, well, I shudder to
consider the consequences. The US has a very potent martial streak that has
not yet been fully awakened by the GWOT. Another big attack could shift the
national mood in unexpected directions, some of which would prove very
unpleasant for the sandier parts of the world.

Of course, if you think the whole terrorism thing is a big lie ginned up by
Karl Rove to get Shrub elected, there's probably no point in discussing the
issue further.

Best,
-cwk.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C Kingsbury wrote:
>
> Here's the real problem: the government can't really afford to tell us
> everything it knows that decisions are based upon. So we're left to argue in
> an atmosphere of highly-politicized misinformation.

Not only that, but Kerry will not be privy to much of the information until he's
elected (*if* he's elected), so he can't really have a good idea of what he will do
about many of the situations we face today.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Dudley Henriques]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in
message ...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: (Paul Tomblin)
>
>>In a previous article, Nomen Nescio
]> said:
>>>So, now, Folks, .....somewhere in Washington, in some little file,
>>>there
>>>are probably
>>>twenty seven 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a
>>paragraph
>>>on the back of each one explaining what each one was, to be used as
>>>evidence against
>>>me.
>>
>>But you can get anything you want at Barnes Airport. Except freedom.
>
> I was wondering if anyone would catch the reference. Still got your
> tie-dye shirts?
> The whole "Alice's Restaurant" thing kept going through my head on the
> drive
> home from Barnes. I wonder why. <g>
> I used to live down the road from Arlo when I was in High School and
> I'd bring my
> guitar over to his place and jam with him, sometimes. I once asked him
> how true the
> whole story was. His response..."Yea, pretty much, man, pretty much".

Amazing!
I used to play a fair to middling bit of guitar myself. I've actually
been on the same stage with Arlo, Doc Watson Pat Sky, Gordo Lightfoot,
Eric Andersen, Bonnie Dobson, and a few others.
In fact, because I've lost my right hand as that applies to something
like Travis picking :-) I've just sold my beautiful Herringbone Martin
D28 last year. I carried that ax with me almost everywhere I went for
most of my life. I'm afraid my guitar days are behind me now, but it's
fun to remember all those good times we had at the coffee houses pickin
downstairs in the basement or in the back room.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Flight Instructor/Aerobatics/Retired

[Jay Beckman]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C Kingsbury wrote:
>>
>> Here's the real problem: the government can't really afford to tell us
>> everything it knows that decisions are based upon. So we're left to argue
>> in
>> an atmosphere of highly-politicized misinformation.
>
> Not only that, but Kerry will not be privy to much of the information
> until he's
> elected (*if* he's elected), so he can't really have a good idea of what
> he will do
> about many of the situations we face today.

George, you make a very good point...

Because he can't be privy to all the info, he's left with only being able to
attack what has gone before. And of course, hindsight is 20/20.

Which, in turn, leaves all of us with the Hobson's Choice of: Do we
continue as we are currently going (with all the inherent risks...) or do we
change horses and hope the new horse doesn't balk at the bell.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that this coming election is
one which will have very far reaching implications for our future.

No matter what your preferences may be...please, everyone, GO VOTE!!!

Remeber, if you don't vote...you can't ever say "Don't blame me, I didn't
vote for (Insert Winner.)"

;o)

Jay Beckman
Student Pilot - KCHD
50.1 Hrs ... Nowhere to go but up!

[[email protected]]

"Jay Beckman" wrote:

> Which, in turn, leaves all of us with the Hobson's Choice of: Do we
> continue as we are currently going (with all the inherent risks...) or do we
> change horses and hope the new horse doesn't balk at the bell.

There's risk either way, as there is whenever one has a choice to change
or not change something. There *is* a recent history on which to form an
opinion about the current leadership, but not nearly as much on which to
base an opinion about how good or bad the alternative might be. Some say
the current leadership has had its chance ... if you aren't satisfied,
it's time to give someone else the reins. Either way, as you said ...
vote.

[Dave Stadt]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > BTW, has Kerry said he would lift even one single security restriction
put
> > in place by the Bush administration, or is he still saying that Bush has
not
> > gone far enough?
>
> He is quoted by AOPA as telling them "Increased domestic security is now a
fact of
> life, but I think that the government has a responsibility to see that the
effect on
> businesses and individuals is minimized."
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
> been looking for it.

Which is the long way around to saying absolutely nothing.

[FullName]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, FullName > said:
(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:
>>> At least you didn't commit the "crime" of photographing a bridge
>>> while black. See http://69.93.170.43/
>>
>>that guy is a nut-ball. he is on the far left frindge of radical
>>socialists... look at his website...
>>http://www.brownequalsterrorist.com/
>
> Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your right
> to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and
> seizure. I guess I was wrong.
>
> Being "on the far left frindge(sic) of radical socialists" is not
> grounds for being threatened by multiple police just because you took
> a picture of a public structure.
>

And to ask a middle eastern man on a expired visa to why hes learning to
only fly a airplane and not land or take off was a Racial insult on Sept
10th.

Things are different now and when you fit the profile and what can
appear to be casing a major structure Im damn happy someone is walking
up and asking a few questions.

free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And being that the socialist wish to remove our Republic and want to
replace it with a their form of opression does in fact qualify them to
be interrorgated on the street.

and I quote "The American way to Bill of Rights socialism
by Gus Hall, National Chair, Communist Party USA
This article was reprinted from the July 26, 1997 issue of the People's

Weekly World. For subscription information see below. All rights
reserved - may be used with PWW credits.


We Communists believe that socialism is the very best replacement for a
capitalist system that has served its purpose but no longer meets the
needs and requirements of the great majority of our people.

We believe that Socialism USA will be built according to the traditions,
history, culture and conditions of the United States. Thus, it will be
different than any other socialist society in the world. It will be
uniquely American. "

[Bob Fry]

Hey folks. Just ignore Mr. FullName...he's clearly a nut-ball with
fascist, extreme right beliefs.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, FullName > said:
>free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
>given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And you don't think 8 policemen with their hands on their guns was
infringing on this guy's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness? He sounded pretty unhappy to me.

>And being that the socialist wish to remove our Republic and want to
>replace it with a their form of opression does in fact qualify them to
>be interrorgated on the street.

You know, if facist overreaction like yours wasn't the biggest threat to
the constitution, you'd be laughably contemptable. As it is, you're only
contemptable.

--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"I picked up a Magic 8-Ball the other day and it said 'Outlook not so
good.' I said, 'Sure, but Microsoft still ships it.'" - unk.

[Scott D.]

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:09:21 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> What authority is needed to take pictures?
>>
>> There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
>> of
>> you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
>> taken
>> as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
>> don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
>> privacy laws are very strict indeed.
>
>The law in New York (or anywhere else in the US) prohibits photographing an
>unwilling subject in public? That doesn't sound credible. Could you cite the
>statute please, or some other source of information concerning it?
>
>--Gary
>
I have to agree with Gary. When you are in public, you are fair game
for any photography. Infact, there was a case that went to court a
year or so ago where some perv had a camera on his shoe and was
actually walking up to women with skirts on and getting "everything"
on film. He actually won the case because they were in public. I
would have hoped that they would have taken it to the supreme court
but I dont know how far it actually got, but it just goes to show that
when you are in public, you can be photographed, even if you dont
agree to it or not.

Scott D.

[Scott D.]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, FullName > said:
>>free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
>>given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>
>And you don't think 8 policemen with their hands on their guns was
>infringing on this guy's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness? He sounded pretty unhappy to me.
>
Now who is blowing up what Paul. In the link that you provided, he
only spoke of 2 officers at his door, not 8. And with out any more
information, you dont know if it was a single 2 man unit or two 1 man
units that were dispatched.

But because I wasnt there, its hard to see who was over reacting, him
or the Seattle police. I dont know, a few questions may have been in
order. Just like what we saw posted here a few weeks ago about a news
crew acting suspicous at an FBO who got carted away.

And its hard to say what the officers intentions were as to why they
had thier hands "casually" resting on thier weapons. It could have
been an intimidation thing, or it could have been they were ready for
anything in an "unknown" situation, or they could have unconsciously
been doing it. Let me justify that last one by saying that I was an
officer for 13 years, and I have at time placed my hand on my
weapon... not for any real reason, but to rest it there, then there
were times, because of signals that my unconsious mind was picking up
from the person I was making contact with made the hairs on the back
of my neck stand up, I made myself in a more ready stance for anything
to happen. So, with just taking one side of the story and believing
in it full heartedly, you are doing yourself a disfavor. In every
story, there are atleast two versions. Once you hear all versions,
somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Scott D.

[Scott D.]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, FullName > said:
>>free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
>>given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>
>And you don't think 8 policemen with their hands on their guns was
>infringing on this guy's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness? He sounded pretty unhappy to me.
>
Now who is blowing up what Paul. In the link that you provided, he
only spoke of 2 officers at his door, not 8. And with out any more
information, you dont know if it was a single 2 man unit or two 1 man
units that were dispatched.

But because I wasnt there, its hard to see who was over reacting, him
or the Seattle police. I dont know, a few questions may have been in
order. Just like what we saw posted here a few weeks ago about a news
crew acting suspicious at an FBO who got carted away.

And its hard to say what the officers intentions were as to why they
had their hands "casually" resting on their weapons. It could have
been an intimidation thing, or it could have been they were ready for
anything in an "unknown" situation, or they could have unconsciously
been doing it. Let me justify that last one by saying that I was an
officer for 13 years, and I have at time placed my hand on my
weapon... not for any real reason, but to rest it there, then there
were times, because of signals that my unconscious mind was picking up
from the person I was making contact with made the hairs on the back
of my neck stand up, I made myself in a more ready stance for anything
to happen. So, with just taking one side of the story and believing
in it full heartedly, you are doing yourself a disfavor. In every
story, there are at least two versions. Once you hear all versions,
somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Scott D.

[Scott D.]

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 01:49:35 +0000 (UTC),
(Paul Tomblin) wrote:

>In a previous article, FullName > said:
>>free speech is constitutionaly protected only when it infriges on my God
>>given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>
>And you don't think 8 policemen with their hands on their guns was
>infringing on this guy's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness? He sounded pretty unhappy to me.
>
Ok Paul, I owe you an apology about the 8 policemen. I didn't realize
that there was more than one page to his rant. After I got to the
third page is where I found his insertion about the second incident.

But my assertion about there is always more than one side to every
story still stands.

Scott D.

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:kNh6d.274288$Fg5.152282@attbi_s53...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> What authority is needed to take pictures?
> >
> > There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
> > of
> > you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
> > taken
> > as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
> > don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
> > privacy laws are very strict indeed.
>
> The law in New York (or anywhere else in the US) prohibits photographing
an
> unwilling subject in public? That doesn't sound credible. Could you cite
the
> statute please, or some other source of information concerning it?

In 1998 California passed the first anti-Paparazzi legislation, prohibiting
any "attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other
physical impression of the person engaging in a personal or familial
activity under circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable
expectation of privacy," "even without physical trespass," "where the
physical invasion occurs in a manner offensive to a reasonable person."
"Personal and familial activity is defined to include intimate details of
the plaintiff's personal life, interaction with the plaintiff's family or
significant others, and other aspects of the plaintiff's private
affairs..." -- Leonard D. Duboff, "The Law for Photographers," p. 52. I
submit that a National Guardsman attempting to intimidate people by taking
their picture would be "offensive to a reasonable person."

Warren and Brandeis had previously written that unless the facts were
newsworthy, individuals have a right to expect protection of "private
facts," including their images taken in public. Since then the Supreme Court
has ruled that the burden of proof falls on the individual to prove that the
facts were not newsworthy, but I doubt that a National Guardsmen is
moonlighting as a press photographer.

In Galella v. Onassis, the Court ruled that intrusion of a person's privacy
even in a public place can be so egregious as to warrant control.

New York itself has a right of privacy law which prohibits intrusion of a
"reasonable expectation of privacy." A National Guardsman attempting to
intimidate law abiding citizens clearly falls into this category.

California and some other states also have what is called the Jackie Coogan
law, which prohibits photographing minors for commercial purposes unless the
photographer meets several rather stringent and expensive requirements.

Quite honestly, the prosecutors who would not prosecute individuals who were
taking pictures up ladies' dresses and the judges who would not put a stop
to it showed a distinctive lack of imagination and abominable legal research
skills.

[C J Campbell]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your right
to
> > freedom of speech,
> >
>
> We do, but we got McCain-Feingold anyway.

Yeah. The right to dance naked in someone's lap is protected, but heaven
help you if you have something political to say. The founding fathers must
be spinning.

[C J Campbell]

We have a government that will not trust its own citizens to own
semi-automatic rifles that look mean, but which will sell the latest
weaponry to any third world thug that wants it. No wonder they are edgy.

I am getting rather edgy myself. If the National Guardsman had made any
threatening moves, I think Mr. Nescio would have been justified in shooting
him in self defense.

[Peter Duniho]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> [...] I
> submit that a National Guardsman attempting to intimidate people by taking
> their picture would be "offensive to a reasonable person."

Whether it would or not is irrelevant, as the pictures were not taken "under
circumstances in which the plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of
privacy".

> [...]
> New York itself has a right of privacy law which prohibits intrusion of a
> "reasonable expectation of privacy." A National Guardsman attempting to
> intimidate law abiding citizens clearly falls into this category.

How does intimidation create a violation of privacy? It doesn't.

Pete

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand loonies
> out there who want to kill us in large numbers.
>

Oh yes? Says who? Bush? Yeah, right.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[John T]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in
message
>
> Not having studied to Patriot Act
> as closely
> as I probably should have, I wasn't (and still am not) sure that he
> didn't have the authority to make us leave. So I thought it might
> kinda ruin the day if we wound up sitting in a small room explaining
> why we were "spying" on the ANG and
> other airport operations.

The Patriot Act has nothing to do with it. He didn't have the authority.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[John T]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message

>
> Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your
> right to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and
> seizure. I guess I was wrong.

No, you're not wrong. You just forgot that the same protection applies to
those who want to call a web site "the far left frindge(sic) of radical
socialists".

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Jay Honeck]

> Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.

Get on line, and find your elected representatives. Send 'em emails,
outlining this outrageous behavior.

Pick up the phone, and call those stuff shirts. Explain what happened, and
how outraged you are at this particular National Guardsman's actions.

Write letters to the editor. Blast the guy -- and the elected officials, if
they don't respond -- all over the local newspapers.

Got local talk radio? Call in and bitch!

Call the guardsman's commanding officer. They are quite accessible, and
usually quite reasonable. (At least they are around here.)

Don't just sit there and complain to us -- do something that works!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Harlow]

> Call the guardsman's commanding officer. They are quite accessible,
> and usually quite reasonable. (At least they are around here.)


That would be my first course of action.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "John T" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message

>>
>> Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your
>> right to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and
>> seizure. I guess I was wrong.
>
>No, you're not wrong. You just forgot that the same protection applies to
>those who want to call a web site "the far left frindge(sic) of radical
>socialists".

I wasn't denying the anonymous coward's right to call the site "the far
left frindge(sic) of radical socialists". I was saying that even if the
guy with the web site *was* on "the far left frindge(sic) of radical
socialists" (and if you conclude that that from that particular blog, then
so am I and most of my friends), that doesn't abrogate his right to take
pictures of a tourist attraction without being threatened by 8 police,
including three "federal agents from Homeland Security".


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
If netcat is compiled with -DGAPING_SECURITY_HOLE, the -e argument
specifies a program to exec after making or receiving a successful
connection. -- netcat README file

[C J Campbell]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Now this brings up an interesting question. Are we, as US
citizens
> > on
> > > > > > public land during peacetime, required to abide by the orders of
> > > > > > military personnel?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > can you say 'Patriot Act'?
> > > >
> > > > The Patriot Act requires no such thing.
> > >
> > > with the Patriot Act the authorities in the US can do almost whatever
they
> > want.
> >
> > Baloney.
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=patriot+act+rights+government
>
> http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=12126&c=207
> http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=9158&c=111

I submit that the hyped up opinions of a few extremist groups are not a
reliable reference.

[C J Campbell]

Next time you go there for a picnic, you might want to take a local
newspaper reporter and a lawyer with you.

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> few extremist groups a
>

If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
call the administration...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary G]

Technically, the US military is not suppose
to act on US Soil (at least not in the states, I
don't really know about territories).

In fact, whenever a US Naval Vessel makes a stop,
a US Coast Guard Offuce MUST be present to take
law enforcement action.

The Patriot Act does not change that.
However, it certainly provides much greater leeway
by "Law Enforcement Agencies".
NSA is technically part of the Dept. of Defense.
It has been pushed over to the:
- FBI
- Coast Guard
- Dept. of Homeland Security
in order to avoid the "military involvement" issues on
homeland soil within our borders.

There are actually several "borders" defined on the seas.
12-mile statue is the one that comes to mind relating
to that involvement.
Some of the other broders relate to "Economic Involvement" or
impact, etc.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > few extremist groups a
> >
>
> If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
> call the administration...

I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the weird
positions that it constantly takes in court.

[John T]

Paul Tomblin wrote:
> In a previous article, "John T" > said:
>> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>>
>>>
>>> Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your
>>> right to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and
>>> seizure. I guess I was wrong.

To whom was this directed? The police in the story or "the anonymous
coward"?

> I wasn't denying the anonymous coward's right to call the site "the
> far left frindge(sic) of radical socialists". I was saying that even
> if the guy with the web site *was* on "the far left frindge(sic) of
> radical socialists" (and if you conclude that that from that
> particular blog, then so am I and most of my friends), that doesn't
> abrogate his right to take pictures of a tourist attraction without
> being threatened by 8 police, including three "federal agents from
> Homeland Security".

Nowhere in the "nutball radical socialist's" article did he claim his
freedom of speech was infringed. Neither, in fact, were his Fourth
Amendment protections violated. Further. we only have his side of the
story. Come back with the rest of the story and we'll see if we can find
the real truth together.

In the meantime, I submit that seeing a brown-skinned individual (perhaps
Middle Eastern in appearance) taking photos of a prominent landmark while
making notes is reasonably suspicious. If you'll recall, the reason the
police first showed up to his house was in response to a citizen complaint
and the police report revealed nothing wrong.

Now, the second scenario where the eight officers surrounded him probably
could have been avoided if he'd cooperated with the first guard with the
dog. I wasn't there so I don't know what was the demeanor of either the
officer(s) or the writer/photographer. Until then, and based solely on the
way he wrote the story, I can easily imagine Spiers having a bit of a chip
on his shoulder (that also being understandable even if unwise).

I can just as easily see some of the officers having a bit of an attitude,
so that brings me back to my real point:

Bring me both sides of the story before you expect me to jump on any
bandwagon.

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" > said:
>"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
>> If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
>> call the administration...
>
>I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the weird
>positions that it constantly takes in court.

Yeah, that insisting that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are
not taken away from people arbitrarily is just *weird*.

--
Paul "Card carrying member" Tomblin >
I wouldn't be surprised if I'd have to put garlic in the CD drawer
to really get rid of it.
-- Arthur van der Harg on 'Gator'

[jls]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
> >"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
> >> call the administration...
> >
> >I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the
weird
> >positions that it constantly takes in court.
>
> Yeah, that insisting that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are
> not taken away from people arbitrarily is just *weird*.

My sentiments too. What's weird about the case ACLU just won against the
Justice Department? The court declared a part of the despicable Patriot
Act unconstitutional.
>
> --
> Paul "Card carrying member" Tomblin >
> I wouldn't be surprised if I'd have to put garlic in the CD drawer
> to really get rid of it.
> -- Arthur van der Harg on 'Gator'

[mike regish]

Was the restaurant open? You could have gone in there. Also, there's a deck
outside the FBO that you probably could have watched from. Just let somebody
in the office know what you're doing. And don't bring any long tubular
objects with you. ;-)

mike regish

p.S. I fly out of Northampton.
"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.
> My wife and I had been hiking in the hills at the foot of the Berkshires
> and
> and when we got back to the car we decided to stop at Barnes Airport
> (KBAF)
> and hang out watching the planes, for a while, and cool off after the
> hike. So
> we parked on the side of the road next to rnwy 20, sat on the tailgate and
> sipped
> on a soda as the planes came and went, as we have done intermittently for
> over
> 3 decades. After 1/2 hour, a camo Hummer pulled out of the Air National
> Guard
> base (on the other side of the airport) and came toward us. It pulled up
> to the
> fence next to us. G.I. Joe sat there for a minute doing whatever
> (chambering a
> round in his 9mm?), then got out and informed us that "You can't stay
> there!".
> "We're just having a soda and watching the planes", I said. He repeated
> "You
> can't stay there!". "I've been coming to this spot for over 30 years,
> damn, 9/11's
> got you guys pretty edgy, huh. I'm a pilot and I've flown in here more
> times than
> I can count". "You have to leave, NOW, sir!", he replied sternly. "Is
> there any
> place, around here, where it's OK to sit and watch the planes?", my wife
> asked.
> "Not here.......there's a place to watch the planes at Bradley"
> (KBDL....20 miles away,
> I know the place off rnwy 6......perfect spot to lob a Stinger Missile up
> the ass of
> a 747 on takeoff), "but you can't stay here".
> Realizing the futility of further discussion, I said, "OK, we're outta
> here". I closed up
> the tailgate of the Tahoe and he went back to his Hummer. My wife and I
> climbed in,
> and we started driving off. A 1/2 mile down the road my wife says, "You
> know, he was
> taking pictures of you as you were closing the tailgate".
> "Oh, ****"
> So, now, Folks, .....somewhere in Washington, in some little file, there
> are probably
> twenty seven 8x10 color glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a
> paragraph
> on the back of each one explaining what each one was, to be used as
> evidence against
> me.
> The next airline trip should be fun......can you say "Cavity Search"!
>
> Hoping you all stay out of the database.
>
> Later,
> Osama Bin Buttf**ked
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBQViq3ZMoscYxZNI5AQFvSAP+PzQLeqqToOyr3EESDF Q7RV3ct0c44PtQ
> 4jeBn1ToYEPj9ItyOJ/+f2HmEuMeU53GqY/s0pBDUfBWiCZ2/jfDJxCokk7DqXex
> G5sgMnFnBRfjou934D8P9FXXACOggvr6zf9TFBCX8t1Zxv3rEK w5exlex1IKYu5u
> ufZqoXqoids=
> =L2BM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

[mike regish]

I'm pretty sure the picture taking was legal and within anybody's rights.

mike reigsh

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
news:PfydnVM0Qcg1CMXcRVn->>
>> On what grounds did he have authority over your actions and location?
>
> None whatsoever. Nor did he have authority to take pictures.
>
>

[mike regish]

I can legally get a telephoto lens, stand in the street and take pictures
through your windows, as long as I don't have to take extraordinary measures
to gain a line of sight. And there's nothing (legal) you can do about it.

mike regish

P.S. Don't worry. The last thing I want is pictures of you.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steve Foley" > wrote in message
> ...
>> What authority is needed to take pictures?
>>
>
> There are privacy laws in most states prohibiting people taking pictures
> of
> you if you don't want them taken, especially if the pictures are being
> taken
> as a form of intimidation or some other threat such as embarrassment. I
> don't know about Massachusetts but across the state line in New York the
> privacy laws are very strict indeed. Courts have held that celebrities
> must
> have a lower expectation of privacy, but even then the celeb's image
> cannot
> be used to promote a product or service without permission. After all, the
> only real asset many celebrities have is their image, and it is not fair
> to
> allow just anyone to make commercial use of it.
>
>

[mike regish]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in
> message
> ...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>> Well, I guess I made the list of suspected terrorists, this weekend.
>
> Guess I get to be the lone voice of dissent here.
>
> In case you haven't noticed, there's at least a couple ten thousand
> loonies
> out there who want to kill us in large numbers. Maybe that's GWB's fault,
> maybe it isn't, but that doesn't change the situation on the ground *right
> now.* You're hanging around off the edge of a runway next near an ANG
> base.

He wasn't near the runway. The runways are several hundred feet away and the
airport is all fenced and locked.

> Sorry, but I can see where the guys are going to get a little edgy. Sounds
> like the soldier was a little gruffer with you than he needed to be, but
> that's not his first order of business.

It should be. As civilians, we outrank him. AND his commander.

mike regish

[mike regish]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> The soldier had no business running the original poster off, unless he was
> on military property (it's not clear whether he was or not).

He wasn't.

[mike regish]

You didn't take a dump, did you?

mike regish

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "John Harlow" >
>
>>Were you in a "no parking" zone?
>
> Only sign I saw was on the fence and said "No Dumping - $500 fine".
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: 2.6.2
>
> iQCVAwUBQVn6opMoscYxZNI5AQGWugP7BD4ayc1rQQ/E/ZGtJHT32Eml7eWKhZiy
> 1P63jQxp+9DEUhT9BXzEeqlcAScU+avXEPHUeFY3Yibtdd+eVI X/TnW/ahmLV1Zp
> QhTPgm5Du967g3JX2q1w6dRpE0Ff4BuYr7Wy3t+C36C2GGumR5 kF094xqZx9obYJ
> bFjMA2xjSm8=
> =r3qq
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>

[jls]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C,
> >
> > > few extremist groups a
> > >
> >
> > If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
> > call the administration...
>
> I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the
weird
> positions that it constantly takes in court.

Please give examples of ACLU's "weird positions." The cases I read are the
ones ACLU wins in court because usually an arm of government has gone weird,
and oppressive.

I'll give you an example of something weird -- the book of mormon. Now
THAT is weird. Twain called it chloroform in print. I agree.

[John Harlow]

> I'll give you an example of something weird -- the book of mormon.
> Now THAT is weird. Twain called it chloroform in print. I agree.

Did you catch the South Park episode on this subject? Excellent!

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
> >"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
> >> call the administration...
> >
> >I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the
weird
> >positions that it constantly takes in court.
>
> Yeah, that insisting that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are
> not taken away from people arbitrarily is just *weird*.

If that is what the ACLU did I would not have a problem with it. However,
the ACLU has consistently worked to prohibit the exercise of freedom of
religion, the right to bear arms, and the right to own property. It has also
sought to disrupt family life, promote communism, and has continually
collaborated with despotic thugs that are the enemies of the United States.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" > said:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
>> >I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the
>weird
>> >positions that it constantly takes in court.
>>
>> Yeah, that insisting that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are
>> not taken away from people arbitrarily is just *weird*.
>
>If that is what the ACLU did I would not have a problem with it. However,
>the ACLU has consistently worked to prohibit the exercise of freedom of
>religion, the right to bear arms, and the right to own property. It has also
>sought to disrupt family life, promote communism, and has continually
>collaborated with despotic thugs that are the enemies of the United States.

Name one instance of any of those things.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
"Mary had a little key,/She kept it in escrow/And everything that Mary
sent/The Feds were sure to know." - Sam Simpson on sci.crypt

[jls]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> > said:
> > >"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >> If you qualify ACLU as an extremist group, I have to wonder what you
> > >> call the administration...
> > >
> > >I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the
> weird
> > >positions that it constantly takes in court.
> >
> > Yeah, that insisting that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are
> > not taken away from people arbitrarily is just *weird*.
>
> If that is what the ACLU did I would not have a problem with it. However,
> the ACLU has consistently worked to prohibit the exercise of freedom of
> religion, the right to bear arms, and the right to own property. It has
also
> sought to disrupt family life, promote communism, and has continually
> collaborated with despotic thugs that are the enemies of the United
States.


All conclusions spiced with invective. Do you have any specific examples?
I didn't think so.

Apparently your conception of "freedom of religion" is freedom to harness
the state or any branch of government to propagate it, in spite of the First
Amendment's Establishment Clause. So you tell us, for example, how ACLU
has harmed your freedom of religion. You won't, of course.

ACLU doesn't take gun cases. By staying out of this fray, ACLU works
*against* the 2nd Amendment? You're amusing.

And, gosh, isn't this NG about piloting airplanes?

[jls]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in message
...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: " jls" >
>
> >My sentiments too. What's weird about the case ACLU just won against
the
> >Justice Department? The court declared a part of the despicable Patriot
> >Act unconstitutional.
>
> You wouldn't happen to be the "long lost" Jay L. S. formerly of
Gelnhausen,
> Germany.......would you?
>
>

I'm a frayed knot. Last name is smith. But thanks for asking.

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> However,
> the ACLU has consistently worked to prohibit the exercise of freedom of
> religion, the right to bear arms, and the right to own property. It has also
> sought to disrupt family life, promote communism, and has continually
> collaborated with despotic thugs that are the enemies of the United States.
>

Woohoo! Yeah, right!

You just crack me up!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

" jls" > wrote in message
...
> I'll give you an example of something weird -- the book of mormon. Now
> THAT is weird.

It's no weirder than the Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran. Singling
out a particular religious tract as an exemplar of weirdness strikes me as
unfair.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> If that is what the ACLU did I would not have a problem with it. However,
> the ACLU has consistently worked to prohibit the exercise of freedom of
> religion,

Actually, they've done just the opposite. For instance, contrary to
right-wing disinformation, the ACLU defends the right of students to pray in
public schools--silently or out loud, alone or in groups. But the ACLU has
(quite properly) opposed allowing the >government< do anything to
orchestrate or promote prayer in public schools.

From the ACLU web site
(http://www.aclu.org/StudentsRights/StudentsRights.cfm?ID=9069&c=162): "Is
it ever ok to pray in school? Sure. Individual students have the right to
pray whenever they want to, as long as they don't disrupt classroom
instruction or other educational activities -- or try to force others to
pray along with them. If a school official has told you that you can't pray
at all during the school day, your right to exercise your religion is being
violated. Contact your local ACLU for help."

--Gary

[John T]

jls wrote:
>
> And, gosh, isn't this NG about piloting airplanes?

Interesting that you put this in *after* your response. If the thread is so
off topic, why bother responding at all? :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
> >"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> > said:
> >> >I certainly do qualify the ACLU as an extremist group, considering the
> >weird
> >> >positions that it constantly takes in court.
> >>
> >> Yeah, that insisting that the rights guaranteed in the constitution are
> >> not taken away from people arbitrarily is just *weird*.
> >
> >If that is what the ACLU did I would not have a problem with it. However,
> >the ACLU has consistently worked to prohibit the exercise of freedom of
> >religion, the right to bear arms, and the right to own property. It has
also
> >sought to disrupt family life, promote communism, and has continually
> >collaborated with despotic thugs that are the enemies of the United
States.
>
> Name one instance of any of those things.

You already know how I feel about issues such as posting the ten
commandments, nativity scenes, Stars of David and crosses and the like, as
well as private schools. You think these things are public imposition of
religion and are prohibited by the Constitution. I think that prohibiting
these things violates freedom of worship guaranteed by the Constitution.
Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending that you do not know the
issues involved. We may never agree, but don't try to tell me you don't know
what we are talking about.

As for ACLU's association with communism, don't be ridiculous. It was
founded by anarchists and communists and continues to be run by them today.
Some of the very earliest members included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who later
became chairman of the American Communist Party, and Agnes Smedly, a Soviet
agent. In every single case that I know of where the United States had a
legal issue with the Kremlin or Castro, the ACLU supported the communists,
even to the point of forcible repatriation of persons who came here looking
for political asylum.

The founder of ACLU was Roger Baldwin.
In 1935, Baldwin wrote the following in his college yearbook:
"I have been to Europe several times, mostly in connection with
international radical activities…and have traveled in the United States to
areas of conflict over workers rights to strike and organize. My chief
aversion is the system of greed, private profit, privilege and violence
which makes up the control of the world today, and which has brought it to
the tragic crisis of unprecedented hunger and unemployment…Therefore, I am
for Socialism, disarmament and ultimately, for the abolishing of the State
itself…I seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the
propertied class and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is
the goal."

Saying that the ACLU is neutral on gun control is bogus. If ACLU were
interested in protecting Constitutional rights then they would be in the
forefront of defending gun owners, especially in states like Washington,
where Constitutional protections are much stronger than in the US.

ACLU also continually sides against parents on such issues as birth control,
sex education, and abortion. Apparently ACLU is able to see a clear
Constitutional mandate for abortion but none for the right to bear arms.
ACLU has also taken the side of Communist states who have demanded
repatriation of children to their home countries when the parents defected
here. They have then contradicted themselves and taken the side of Cuba, for
example, when a child staying with relatives defected to the United States.

ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that it
does not like.

I will be the first to admit that the ACLU has not always been wrong. It
opposes some real limitations on Constitutional freedoms. But to pretend tha
t these are the only positions that ACLU takes and that ACLU's goal is
preservation of the Constitution of the United States is just plain idiocy.

[C J Campbell]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> jls wrote:
> >
> > And, gosh, isn't this NG about piloting airplanes?
>
> Interesting that you put this in *after* your response. If the thread is
so
> off topic, why bother responding at all? :)

The old "shut up and prove it" argument.

[Jay Honeck]

> > I'll give you an example of something weird -- the book of mormon. Now
> > THAT is weird.
>
> It's no weirder than the Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran. Singling
> out a particular religious tract as an exemplar of weirdness strikes me as
> unfair.

Well said, Gary, and I agree 100%.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dudley Henriques]

"Nomen Nescio" ]> wrote in
message ...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> From: "Dudley Henriques" >
>
>>Amazing!
>>I used to play a fair to middling bit of guitar myself.
>
> I never would have guessed that, but reading it, I'm not that
> surprised. I've
> always thought there's a certain connection between music and
> aerobatics.

My good friend Scotty McCray, used music in his sailplane routine as a
professional airshow pilot, all through his career.
>
>> I've actually
>>been on the same stage with Arlo, Doc Watson Pat Sky, Gordo Lightfoot,
>>Eric Andersen, Bonnie Dobson, and a few others.
>
> Impressive collection of names. I never really took the guitar beyond
> playing
> with local bands..clubs, colleges, etc.

I'm afraid their names are much more impressive than my humble back up
playing. It was fun though.
>
>>In fact, because I've lost my right hand as that applies to something
>>like Travis picking :-)
>
> I never had a right hand as that applies to something like Travis
> picking :-)
> Fat thumb. Never could catch the A string without whacking the E. Had
> to go
> with a pick between the thumb and forefinger which, of course, only
> left me with
> 3 fingers for the top end.

Doc was the best flat picker I've ever seen. Being blind didn't hinder
him a bit with his music. Then again there was Art Tatum, and George
Shearing and Lord knows how many others. I think you can make a case for
musicians actually having a more comprehensive insight into their music
through physical handicap.
>
>>I've just sold my beautiful Herringbone Martin
>>D28 last year. I carried that ax with me almost everywhere I went for
>>most of my life.
>
> That must have stung, a little bit. I hope it went to someone
> "deserving".

It was an auction. I watched it change hands, but never met the
individual.
Actually, I didn't want to. It was like watching an old friend die.
Can't explain it..won't try!


>
>>I'm afraid my guitar days are behind me now, but it's
>>fun to remember all those good times we had at the coffee houses
>>pickin
>>downstairs in the basement or in the back room.
>
> Hanging with the beatniks and hippies? I never would have guessed
> that, either.

You just never know about these "old" guys do you? :-)
>
> I stil do some pickin' but my audience is normally confined to my wife
> and cats.

Cats get very nervous around guitar strings you know....all that talk
about catgut and all that!!


> 3 weeks ago, I got in front of a "real" audience for the first time in
> 10 years at
> the annual neighborhood block party. Dug out my old Les Paul Std. and
> did the
> lead to a couple of "Santana" tunes with our local band. "Samba Pa Ti"
> and
> "Europe", if you're interested. Actually sounded fairly good,
> considering we
> hadn't practiced it ahead of time...and I hadn't changed the strings
> in months.
> As a side note, my wife has a voice that could out Patsy Cline, "Patsy
> Cline".
> She's the real musical talent in the family.

Well, I'm glad at least one of us can still play. :-)

Take care,
Dudley

[C J Campbell]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:vGV6d.147341$D%.105328@attbi_s51...
> > > I'll give you an example of something weird -- the book of mormon.
Now
> > > THAT is weird.
> >
> > It's no weirder than the Torah, the New Testament, or the Koran.
Singling
> > out a particular religious tract as an exemplar of weirdness strikes me
as
> > unfair.
>
> Well said, Gary, and I agree 100%.

Well, the Book of the SubGenius comes pretty close. :-)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dudley Henriques wrote:
>
> Actually, I didn't want to. It was like watching an old friend die.
> Can't explain it..won't try!

That's what I'm afraid of. My Guild just sits in the corner year after year. Should
sell it, but it won't bring enough to ease the pain much.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Paul Tomblin]

In a previous article, "C J Campbell" > said:
>You already know how I feel about issues such as posting the ten
>commandments, nativity scenes, Stars of David and crosses and the like, as
>well as private schools. You think these things are public imposition of
>religion and are prohibited by the Constitution. I think that prohibiting
>these things violates freedom of worship guaranteed by the Constitution.
>Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending that you do not know the
>issues involved. We may never agree, but don't try to tell me you don't know
>what we are talking about.

I know the ACLU has worked hard and long to keep people like you from
using government organizations, funds, and buildings to impose your
religious beliefs on me and my children. That is not working to "prohibit
the exercise of freedom of religion". It is working to *strengthen* my
exercise of freedom of religion.

>As for ACLU's association with communism, don't be ridiculous. It was
>founded by anarchists and communists and continues to be run by them today.
>Some of the very earliest members included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who later
>became chairman of the American Communist Party, and Agnes Smedly, a Soviet
>agent. In every single case that I know of where the United States had a
>legal issue with the Kremlin or Castro, the ACLU supported the communists,
>even to the point of forcible repatriation of persons who came here looking
>for political asylum.

So it was founded by people associated with communism. How has it worked
to "promote communism". Name one concrete thing.

As for "forcible repatriation", the only case I can think you're thinking
of is Elian Gonzalez, who was kidnapped by a non-parent away from a
parent. That should have been a simple child custody case, and if it
wasn't for the national border nobody would have wasted a second's thought
on coming to the conclusion that the boy should have been returned to the
parent.

>Saying that the ACLU is neutral on gun control is bogus. If ACLU were
>interested in protecting Constitutional rights then they would be in the
>forefront of defending gun owners, especially in states like Washington,
>where Constitutional protections are much stronger than in the US.

That particular constitutional ammendment has a MUCH larger organization
protecting it. Why would the ACLU waste its limited time and resources
protecting the second ammendment when the largest political organization
in the country, the NRA, is already working on the case?


>ACLU also continually sides against parents on such issues as birth control,
>sex education, and abortion. Apparently ACLU is able to see a clear

Again, name one case.

>ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
>believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that it
>does not like.

ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
people. Hardly an attack.


--
Paul Tomblin > http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I don't see what C++ has to do with keeping people from shooting themselves
in the foot. C++ will happily load the gun, offer you a drink to steady
your nerves, and help you aim. -- Peter da Silva

[jls]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
[...]Constitutional mandate for abortion but none for the right to bear
arms.
> ACLU has also taken the side of Communist states who have demanded
> repatriation of children to their home countries when the parents defected
> here. They have then contradicted themselves and taken the side of Cuba,
for
> example, when a child staying with relatives defected to the United
States.

No child of tender years is capable of choosing his custodian under the law
of any state in this country. Or of understanding the notion of defection,
for that matter. Again, you demonstrate amusing ignorance of settled law.

When a child reaches adolescence he is capable then of telling the judge his
choice of custodians in a custody dispute, although his choice is not
dispositive.

The child you allude to had lost his mother and his father remained in Cuba.
Under the laws of every state of this country the biological parents are
presumptively the best choice for custody and care of a minor child.

Why don't you tell us how Utah territory promised to permit and encourage
due process of law in its courts as a condition of statehood and then
quietly, deviously passed a law whereby lawyers could not collect fees for
their services. Meaning, of course, that no lawyers were willing to
practice in this ugly little mormon theocracy. Oh, and tell us about
Brigham Young's many wives and nasty divorces, one of the reasons why he
hated lawyers --- because a few of his ex-wives tagged him for property
settlements and some cash money when otherwise they would have gotten
NOTHING.

[John T]

Nomen Nescio wrote:
>
> I've been wanting to take a
> drive by that area, again, and see if there were any signs that were
> prohibiting parking in
> that area that I may not have seen, since we came in from a side
> street and
> not the main road. I'd hate to make a big stink over things if it
> really was a prohibited area (and look REAL stupid in the process).

Nothing's wrong or stupid about a polite "Why?"

> But my understanding
> of fenced in areas has always been.....Inside the fence - bad,
> outside the
> fence - good.

That's generally the rule.

> But in defense of the ANG, my wife and I had been out hiking for the
> day,
> I was wearing my "Treebark" camo pants, we had a scanner in the SUV
> that
> was tuned to the tower, and I have brown hair (now a little more gray
> than brown)...brown eyes...a beard...and a fairly .dark skin.

That and references to the 60's.... :)

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer
http://www.pocketgear.com/products_search.asp?developerid=4415
____________________

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> >ACLU also continually sides against parents on such issues as birth
control,
> >sex education, and abortion. Apparently ACLU is able to see a clear
>
> Again, name one case.

ACLU continues to support minors' right to an abortion without parental
permission or even the parents knowing about it. Their position is that this
is necessary in order to prevent incest.

>
> >ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
> >believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that it
> >does not like.
>
> ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
> people. Hardly an attack.

Freedom to associate with whom you please means also the freedom to not
associate with some people, no matter how unpalatable that may be. The Boy
Scouts is a private organization. ACLU has no business telling a private
organization who they must accept as members and who not.

[FullName]

In 1931, a congressional report of the Special House Committee to
Investigate Communist Activities stated:

The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the
communist movement in the United States, and fully 90 percent of its
efforts are on behalf of communists who have come into conflict with the
law. It claims to stand for free speech, free press, and free assembly;
but it is quite apparent that the main function of the ACLU is to
attempt to protect the communists in their advocacy of force and
violence to overthrow the government, replacing the American flag by a
red flag and erecting a Soviet government in place of the republican
form of government guaranteed to each state by the federal Constitution.

The House committee members had good reason to arrive at that
conclusion. The ACLU’s membership, leadership, and projects soon gave
rise to claims by critics that the organization’s acronym really stood
for Atheists, Communists, and Libertines United, or Anti-Christian
Lawyers Union. The ACLU was launched at a party given for Roger Baldwin
upon his release from prison for draft evasion in 1919. The main
attendees at the soiree were Norman Thomas, who would become the
patriarch of the Socialist Party; Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who would
become the Communist Party’s national chairman; and Agnes Smedley, who
would become a Soviet espionage agent in China. Top Communist Party
officials who became national committee members or members of its board
of directors included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, William Z. Foster, Louis
Budenz, Corliss Lamont, and Scott Nearing, as well as hundreds of
Communist fellow travelers.

Roger Baldwin directed the ACLU for 30 years. Earlier, he described his
own philosophy this way in his college yearbook: "I am for Socialism,
disarmament, and, ultimately, for abolishing the State itself as an
instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek the social ownership of
property, the abolition of the propertied class and sole control of
those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." He gave no evidence of
ever having swerved from that goal. However, he did give his comrades
good advice on effective stratagems for disguising their true intent.

In 1917, Baldwin wrote to Louis Lochner of the People’s Council, a
Communist group, counseling:

Do steer away from making it [the People’s Council] look like a
Socialist enterprise. Too many people have already gotten the idea that
it is nine-tenths a Socialist movement.... We want also to look like
patriots in everything we do. We want to get a lot of good flags, talk a
good deal about the Constitution and what our forefathers wanted to make
of this country, and to show that we are the folks that really stand for
the spirit of our institutions.

The ACLU has perfected this masquerade, posing as the Constitution’s
guardian while working to destroy it and the morality, responsibility,
and decentralized, local governance essential to our constitutional
system. The organization defends abortion on demand, child pornography,
flag burning, homosexual "marriages" and the right of homosexuals to
adopt children, full "constitutional" rights for illegal aliens, and
legalizing prostitution, pandering, and all recreational drug usage. It
opposes private ownership of guns, voluntary school prayer, religious
displays on public property, capital punishment, prison terms for most
crimes, and tax-exemptions for churches and synagogues.

For decades, the ACLU has worked hand-in-glove with the National Lawyers
Guild, officially cited by a committee of Congress as "the foremost
legal bulwark of the Communist Party." Both of these groups have been
striving since the early 20th century to undermine all U.S. immigration
and internal security protections. The easy access across our borders
enjoyed by the 9-11 hijackers is largely a testament to the nonstop
attacks by the ACLU-NLG saboteurs upon the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, the Border Patrol, and our immigration laws.

Following the September 11th terror attacks, the ACLU and NLG activists
have continued their subversion. One of their most outrageous ongoing
campaigns has been to support members of the Popular Front for the
Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a radical, Marxist branch of the PLO.
The INS had tried since 1987 to deport eight members of this terrorist
group from the U.S., but had been stymied by the continuous appeals and
legal delaying tactics of the ACLU-NLG attorneys. Working with Senator
Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative John Conyers of
Michigan, the ACLU-NLG radicals fashioned language to the USA PATRIOT
Act to exempt the members of the terrorist PFLP whom the INS was trying
to deport. This showed unequivocally that the ACLU has not changed its
spots. By undermining our internal security, the ACLU is actually
helping fasten federal police-state measures on the 99.99 percent of
Americans who present no terrorist threat, while protecting the small
minority of terrorists and their supporters whom law enforcement
agencies should be targeting.

By usurping the mantle of leadership of the opposition to the growing
police state, the ACLU’s current deception campaign provides a double
effect. First, it scares many conservatives familiar with the group’s
radical record into more readily accepting the Bush administration’s
dangerous measures concentrating more and more power in Washington. The
pseudo-conservative columnists and radio talk shows supporting the Bush
agenda are having a field day denouncing all opponents as liberal ACLU
dupes. On the other hand, patriotic Americans who have strong
constitutional principles, but are unfamiliar with the ACLU’s sordid
record and the role it is playing, may be tempted to join the ACLU-led
opposition parade. Both of these false alternatives must be rejected.

[FullName]

(Paul Tomblin) wrote in
:

> In a previous article, (Teacherjh) said:
>>I would not bet my certificate that there would be no adverse
>>consequences to not obeying orders, whether these orders are legit or
>>not. Not in this country. Not now.
>
> Which is about the saddest thing ever.
>
>

and maybe a terrorist is thinking twice before attempting an attack..
Because there was a brave National guardsman that saw something out of the
ordinary (assumed), stood his ground and took the un-popular step of
removing a unknown threat. Politely and with professionalism...

Regardless what we say here, Put yourselves in his shoes...on the last
watch someone got in and 3000 people paid the price. There are people still
out there that want to repeat their horror... Thank goodness hes stepping
up....

Which is the best thing ever...

[Charlie]

Bob Fry > wrote in
:

> Hey folks. Just ignore Mr. FullName...he's clearly a nut-ball with
> fascist, extreme right beliefs.
>

Thats a shout out for free speech Bob... free speech is only good for
those that you agree with, the rest are nutballs and should be ignored.

Ya Vol Kommandant...

[C J Campbell]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
> >You already know how I feel about issues such as posting the ten
> >commandments, nativity scenes, Stars of David and crosses and the like,
as
> >well as private schools. You think these things are public imposition of
> >religion and are prohibited by the Constitution. I think that prohibiting
> >these things violates freedom of worship guaranteed by the Constitution.
> >Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending that you do not know
the
> >issues involved. We may never agree, but don't try to tell me you don't
know
> >what we are talking about.
>
> I know the ACLU has worked hard and long to keep people like you from
> using government organizations, funds, and buildings to impose your
> religious beliefs on me and my children.

Name even one instance where either I or my church has advocated any such
thing.

[Thomas Borchert]

Nomen,

Ah, the land of the free...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gary Drescher]

"Charlie" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Fry > wrote in
> :
>
>> Hey folks. Just ignore Mr. FullName...he's clearly a nut-ball with
>> fascist, extreme right beliefs.
>
> Thats a shout out for free speech Bob... free speech is only good for
> those that you agree with, the rest are nutballs and should be ignored.

Uh, you're under the impression that criticizing or ignoring someone
violates their freedom of speech somehow? You are >very< unclear on the
concept.

--Gary

[G.R. Patterson III]

Charlie wrote:
>
> Thats a shout out for free speech Bob... free speech is only good for
> those that you agree with, the rest are nutballs and should be ignored.

Oh, bull. Freedom of speech doesn't mean that everyone has to listen to you.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Brian Downing]

In article >,
C J Campbell > wrote:
> > ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
> > people. Hardly an attack.
>
> Freedom to associate with whom you please means also the freedom to not
> associate with some people, no matter how unpalatable that may be. The Boy
> Scouts is a private organization. ACLU has no business telling a private
> organization who they must accept as members and who not.

I believe the ACLU's position on this does not have a problem with the
Boy Scouts. As you say, they are a private organization and may, while
not breaking the law, disallow anyone from joining their organization,
no matter how distasteful their policies are to some.

The problem is that many public school districts allow the Scouts to use
their grounds and promote them as an organization. This, many parents
of the "disallowed" children feel, is tantamount to the
government-funded school district discriminating itself.

Obviously others disagree with this interpretation. I don't, however -
school districts should not be supporting an organization that
discriminates based on religion or sexual orientation.

"The Boys Scouts may have a legal right to discriminate against
atheists, agnostics, gays and others, but we remain convinced that
as long as they continue that discrimination they have no right to
receive special access to Portland elementary schools during the
school day to recruit 6 and 7 year-old boys to join in that
discrimination," [Oregon ACLU Executive Director David] Fidanque
said.

Strangely, I was a Boy Scout for perhaps a year - I didn't enjoy it.
Our troop was based in a church, though; I have no problem with that
arrangement. Ironically, I was agnostic. :)

If there was a case where the ACLU went right to the Scouts and said
that they could not discriminate at all even without getting
preferential treatment from schools, I apologize - they are out of line
then in that case.

-bcd
--
*** Brian Downing <bdowning at lavos dot net>

[Bob Noel]

In article <xof7d.52464$He1.20410@attbi_s01>, Brian Downing
> wrote:


>
> Obviously others disagree with this interpretation. I don't, however -
> school districts should not be supporting an organization that
> discriminates based on religion or sexual orientation.

assuming, of course, that said organization is actually discriminating.





>
> "The Boys Scouts may have a legal right to discriminate against
> atheists, agnostics, gays and others, but we remain convinced that
> as long as they continue that discrimination they have no right to
> receive special access to Portland elementary schools during the
> school day to recruit 6 and 7 year-old boys to join in that
> discrimination," [Oregon ACLU Executive Director David] Fidanque
> said.
>
> Strangely, I was a Boy Scout for perhaps a year - I didn't enjoy it.
> Our troop was based in a church, though; I have no problem with that
> arrangement. Ironically, I was agnostic. :)
>
> If there was a case where the ACLU went right to the Scouts and said
> that they could not discriminate at all even without getting
> preferential treatment from schools, I apologize - they are out of line
> then in that case.


you don't see a problem labelling the BSA as an organization that
discriminates?

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[C J Campbell]

First of all, you are assuming that it is illegal to discriminate by sexual
orientation under the Constitution. It is not. There are some local laws
that prohibit it, but these clearly violate the Constitution's freedom of
association clause.

There are gay groups that also meet on school property.

In Boston and New Jersey, the ACLU attempted to prove that the Boy Scouts
could not discriminate at all because they are a "public facility" like a
restaurant or golf course.

[Tom S.]

"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
> >You already know how I feel about issues such as posting the ten
> >commandments, nativity scenes, Stars of David and crosses and the like,
as
> >well as private schools. You think these things are public imposition of
> >religion and are prohibited by the Constitution. I think that prohibiting
> >these things violates freedom of worship guaranteed by the Constitution.
> >Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending that you do not know
the
> >issues involved. We may never agree, but don't try to tell me you don't
know
> >what we are talking about.
>
> I know the ACLU has worked hard and long to keep people like you from
> using government organizations, funds, and buildings to impose your
> religious beliefs on me and my children. That is not working to "prohibit
> the exercise of freedom of religion". It is working to *strengthen* my
> exercise of freedom of religion.
>
> >As for ACLU's association with communism, don't be ridiculous. It was
> >founded by anarchists and communists and continues to be run by them
today.
> >Some of the very earliest members included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who
later
> >became chairman of the American Communist Party, and Agnes Smedly, a
Soviet
> >agent. In every single case that I know of where the United States had a
> >legal issue with the Kremlin or Castro, the ACLU supported the
communists,
> >even to the point of forcible repatriation of persons who came here
looking
> >for political asylum.
>
> So it was founded by people associated with communism. How has it worked
> to "promote communism". Name one concrete thing.
>
> As for "forcible repatriation", the only case I can think you're thinking
> of is Elian Gonzalez, who was kidnapped by a non-parent away from a
> parent. That should have been a simple child custody case, and if it
> wasn't for the national border nobody would have wasted a second's thought
> on coming to the conclusion that the boy should have been returned to the
> parent.
>
> >Saying that the ACLU is neutral on gun control is bogus. If ACLU were
> >interested in protecting Constitutional rights then they would be in the
> >forefront of defending gun owners, especially in states like Washington,
> >where Constitutional protections are much stronger than in the US.
>
> That particular constitutional ammendment has a MUCH larger organization
> protecting it. Why would the ACLU waste its limited time and resources
> protecting the second ammendment when the largest political organization
> in the country, the NRA, is already working on the case?
>
>
> >ACLU also continually sides against parents on such issues as birth
control,
> >sex education, and abortion. Apparently ACLU is able to see a clear
>
> Again, name one case.
>
> >ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
> >believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that it
> >does not like.
>
> ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
> people. Hardly an attack.

Except the Boy Scouts is a private organization. Just like there can be no
private censorship under the 1st Amendment (...CONGRESS shall pas no law...)
the Communists abhor freedom of association (individual rights) over
collectivization.

While I agree CJ is totally bonkers regards his version of freedom of
worship, he is correct on his take on the ACLU, who take a very erratic view
of the Bill of Rights. BTW, the GRU was the group that was fundamental in
founding the ACLU, not to protect freedom of speech (notice they never take
the case of conservatives/free market types at colleges that have speech
codes) but to maintain their propaganda outlets.

By the way, note too that the Communist Party USA endorses Kerry
http://www.cpusa.org

[Tom S.]

> "Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> > said:
> > >You already know how I feel about issues such as posting the ten
> > >commandments, nativity scenes, Stars of David and crosses and the like,
> as
> > >well as private schools. You think these things are public imposition
of
> > >religion and are prohibited by the Constitution. I think that
prohibiting
> > >these things violates freedom of worship guaranteed by the
Constitution.
> > >Please do not insult my intelligence by pretending that you do not know
> the
> > >issues involved. We may never agree, but don't try to tell me you don't
> know
> > >what we are talking about.
> >
> > I know the ACLU has worked hard and long to keep people like you from
> > using government organizations, funds, and buildings to impose your
> > religious beliefs on me and my children. That is not working to
"prohibit
> > the exercise of freedom of religion". It is working to *strengthen* my
> > exercise of freedom of religion.
> >
> > >As for ACLU's association with communism, don't be ridiculous. It was
> > >founded by anarchists and communists and continues to be run by them
> today.
> > >Some of the very earliest members included Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, who
> later
> > >became chairman of the American Communist Party, and Agnes Smedly, a
> Soviet
> > >agent. In every single case that I know of where the United States had
a
> > >legal issue with the Kremlin or Castro, the ACLU supported the
> communists,
> > >even to the point of forcible repatriation of persons who came here
> looking
> > >for political asylum.
> >
> > So it was founded by people associated with communism. How has it
worked
> > to "promote communism". Name one concrete thing.
> >
> > As for "forcible repatriation", the only case I can think you're
thinking
> > of is Elian Gonzalez, who was kidnapped by a non-parent away from a
> > parent. That should have been a simple child custody case, and if it
> > wasn't for the national border nobody would have wasted a second's
thought
> > on coming to the conclusion that the boy should have been returned to
the
> > parent.
> >
> > >Saying that the ACLU is neutral on gun control is bogus. If ACLU were
> > >interested in protecting Constitutional rights then they would be in
the
> > >forefront of defending gun owners, especially in states like
Washington,
> > >where Constitutional protections are much stronger than in the US.
> >
> > That particular constitutional ammendment has a MUCH larger organization
> > protecting it. Why would the ACLU waste its limited time and resources
> > protecting the second ammendment when the largest political organization
> > in the country, the NRA, is already working on the case?
> >
> >
> > >ACLU also continually sides against parents on such issues as birth
> control,
> > >sex education, and abortion. Apparently ACLU is able to see a clear
> >
> > Again, name one case.
> >
> > >ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
> > >believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that
it
> > >does not like.
> >
> > ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
> > people. Hardly an attack.
>
Except the Boy Scouts is a private organization. Just like there can be no
private censorship under the 1st Amendment (...CONGRESS shall pas no
law...)
the Communists abhor freedom of association (individual rights) over
collectivization.

While I agree CJ is totally off base as regards this version of freedom of
worship, he is correct on his take on the ACLU, who take a very erratic
view
of the Bill of Rights. BTW, the GRU was the group that was fundamental in
founding the ACLU, not to protect freedom of speech (notice they never take
the case of conservatives/free market types at colleges that have speech
codes) but to maintain their propaganda outlets.

By the way, note too that the Communist Party USA endorses Kerry
http://www.cpusa.org

[Brian Westley]

Bob Noel > writes:
>In article <xof7d.52464$He1.20410@attbi_s01>, Brian Downing
> wrote:

>>
>> Obviously others disagree with this interpretation. I don't, however -
>> school districts should not be supporting an organization that
>> discriminates based on religion or sexual orientation.

>assuming, of course, that said organization is actually discriminating.

Of course the Boy Scouts discriminate - they've stated in court that
gays and atheists cannot be members.

Are you thinking that "discrimination" means "unlawful discrimination"?

>> "The Boys Scouts may have a legal right to discriminate against
>> atheists, agnostics, gays and others, but we remain convinced that
>> as long as they continue that discrimination they have no right to
>> receive special access to Portland elementary schools during the
>> school day to recruit 6 and 7 year-old boys to join in that
>> discrimination," [Oregon ACLU Executive Director David] Fidanque
>> said.
>>
>> Strangely, I was a Boy Scout for perhaps a year - I didn't enjoy it.
>> Our troop was based in a church, though; I have no problem with that
>> arrangement. Ironically, I was agnostic. :)
>>
>> If there was a case where the ACLU went right to the Scouts and said
>> that they could not discriminate at all even without getting
>> preferential treatment from schools, I apologize - they are out of line
>> then in that case.

>you don't see a problem labelling the BSA as an organization that
>discriminates?

I don't. The BSA clearly discriminates. They've stated in court
that atheists and gays can't join. I've called the legal department
at the national BSA, and David Park told me that atheists can't even
join a BSA unit sponsored by a public school; the Boy Scouts expect
the public school to break the law and exclude their own students
based on their religious views.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

[Brian Westley]

"Tom S." > writes:
>"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
...
>> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> said:
....
>> >ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
>> >believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that it
>> >does not like.
>>
>> ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
>> people. Hardly an attack.

>Except the Boy Scouts is a private organization.

That wasn't decided UNTIL the courts ruled when the ACLU brought the
lawsuit; you can hardly fault the ACLU for arguing its side of a case
(much of which was based on the fact that many government agencies
sponsor BSA units. Note that I'm not talking about schools allowing BSA
units to meet; there were, and still are, lots of public schools and
other government agencies that own & operate BSA units. The ACLU
is suing to remove this government sponsorship).

---
Merlyn LeRoy

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Brian
Westley > wrote:

> >> ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
> >> people. Hardly an attack.
>
> >Except the Boy Scouts is a private organization.
>
> That wasn't decided UNTIL the courts ruled when the ACLU brought the
> lawsuit;

It was already known that the BSA is a private organization.

Perhaps it wasn't legally determined until the case, but the BSA
being a private organization falls into the duh category.

--
Bob Noel
Seen on Kerry's campaign airplane: "the real deal"
oh yeah baby.

[Dave Stadt]

"Brian Westley" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Tom S." > writes:
> >"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
> > said:
> ...
> >> >ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
> >> >believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that
it
> >> >does not like.
> >>
> >> ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
> >> people. Hardly an attack.
>
> >Except the Boy Scouts is a private organization.
>
> That wasn't decided UNTIL the courts ruled when the ACLU brought the
> lawsuit; you can hardly fault the ACLU for arguing its side of a case
> (much of which was based on the fact that many government agencies
> sponsor BSA units. Note that I'm not talking about schools allowing BSA
> units to meet; there were, and still are, lots of public schools and
> other government agencies that own & operate BSA units.

How does an organization "own" a BSA unit?

The ACLU
> is suing to remove this government sponsorship).
>
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy

[C J Campbell]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> How does an organization "own" a BSA unit?
>

It is a term commonly used among Scouters. Every unit is chartered by some
other organization, such as church, civic club, school, or even a business.
Chartered organizations are given some guidelines and rules they must
follow, but otherwise the unit 'belongs' to the chartered organizations.
Within these guidelines, the chartering organization has wide latitude in
how the unit is run. So, the unit is literally 'owned' by the chartering
organization, like a McDonalds franchise is 'owned' by the franchisee.

Each chartered organization has a charter representative on the local
district, if the local council is divided into districts. This district
committee may also have several 'at large' members. The district committee
organizes larger events and sets policies for the district. Each district
committee member gets one vote. Councils are similarly organized, and they
have representatives on the National Committee.

Since the vast majority of BSA units are owned by churches, these churches
basically run BSA and set all policies. These churches have threatened to
pull out of BSA if courts force policies inimical to the churches' beliefs
on the organization, which would basically end the Boy Scouts as we know it.
BSA would lose almost all of its funding and something like 80% of its
members.

It is widely believed by the churches that BSA shields them from
anti-discrimination attacks on themselves. They think that if BSA goes, they
are next -- that they will not even be able to determine their own
doctrines. I have heard various church leaders say that BSA is a lightning
rod that distracts attacks on their religious beliefs from themselves.

[StellaStar]

>ACLU, not to protect freedom of speech (notice they never take
> the case of conservatives/free market types at colleges that have speech
> codes) but to maintain their propaganda outlets.


The ACLU frequently takes the side of conservative and other groups. Free
speech is free speech, as long as it's respectful of others' constitutional
rights.

As for the Boy Scouts, if they had the work ethic of the Girl Scouts, they
wouldn't be in this fix. They take money from civic charities so they must
abide by nondiscrimination rules. If they earned their own funds like the
girls they wouldn't have to.

> By the way, note too that the Communist Party USA endorses Kerry
> http://www.cpusa.org

No, the party makes clear that it does not endorse candidates.

And Fox news has no respect for you, and less for journalistic ethics than CBS
does.

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?sectionid=1&id=5607

[John Harlow]

> And Fox news has no respect for you, and less for journalistic ethics
> than CBS does.

Does anyone with any sensibility watch Fox "news" - other than for amusement
of course?

[Jay Honeck]

> Does anyone with any sensibility watch Fox "news" - other than for
> amusement of course?

When given the choice between Dan Rather and Fox?

Dang, that's pretty much a toss-up...

I'll stick to NPR, thanks.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <MHT8d.190485$MQ5.15096@attbi_s52>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Does anyone with any sensibility watch Fox "news" - other than for
> > amusement of course?
>
> When given the choice between Dan Rather and Fox?
>
> Dang, that's pretty much a toss-up...
>
> I'll stick to NPR, thanks.



Or a choice between ANY CBS "news" program and Fox Nesew?

[Jim Rosinski]

"John Harlow" > wrote

> Does anyone with any sensibility watch Fox "news" - other than for amusement
> of course?

Dunno whether my fairly infrequent posts to this NG have resulted in
folks labeling me "sensible", or otherwise. But my $0.02 says Fox
News is the only game in town for anyone looking for balanced coverage
from TV news.

I just watched "OutFoxed", a "documentary" video produced by
MoveOn.org whose subtitle is "Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism".
Their examples of right-wing bias at FNC were so pathetic as to render
me a bigger Fox News advocate than ever. Here are a few examples:

o They showed numerous clips of FNC's Sean Hannity saying "X days left
before Bush/Cheney are reelected". First off, Hannity is one half of a
Conservative/Liberal talk show patterned after CNN's "Crossfire". He's
SUPPOSED to be conservative. The liberal half of the show, Allan
Colmes, often declares "X days left before John Kerry becomes our new
president". Of course the video didn't show any of that.

o Much is made of Bill O'Reilly declaring he's only told guests to
"shut up" a couple of times, then showing maybe 10 clips of him
telling certain people to do just that. Problem is, most of the clips
OutFoxed came up were things like "why don't you just shut up about
your sexuality?". I.e. he wasn't actually telling them to shut up, but
suggesting as a general principle that they'd be better off keeping
quiet about certain private matters.

o The claim was made that FNC only has "weak" liberal guests. O'Reilly
regularly has Clinton's Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, on as a
guest. I can't stand that S.O.B., but one thing he's not is stupid.
They also berated Allan Colmes for not being handsome enough, and
Susan Estridge (ran Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign) for being
too conservative!

Though I'm no Republican, I'll have to admit to taking a bit of
perverse joy at watching "the left" react in apoplectic fits to the
success of right-wing talk radio and the way-overdue emergence of a
broadcast news source that ISN'T left of center. It's nothing short of
hilarious given the current fiasco at CBS, and the longstanding
obvious left-wing bias at the other networks.

Anybody listen to Air America radio? That's the new left-wing talk
network bankrolled by billionaire George Soros. They've got Al Franken
and a bunch of other nobodies who just sit there and scream
(literally) about what a bunch of "liars" the Bush administration are.
A complete waste of time.

Bottom line: I think FNC is well worth watching, if for no other
reason than to momentarily remove one's head from the left-wing
cesspool that is the rest of broadcast news.

Jim Rosinski
Still undecided about who he'd rather see lose the Presidential
election.

[Thomas Borchert]

Jim,

> ut my $0.02 says Fox
> News is the only game in town for anyone looking for balanced coverage
> from TV news.
>

Bruhaha! OMG! You guys are hilarious.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cub Driver]

On 6 Oct 2004 12:44:51 -0700, (Jim Rosinski) wrote:

>Dunno whether my fairly infrequent posts to this NG have resulted in
>folks labeling me "sensible", or otherwise. But my $0.02 says Fox
>News is the only game in town for anyone looking for balanced coverage
>from TV news.

That's because you have conservative leanings. To a liberal, Fox would
look right-wing.

To the same liberal, the major broadcast networks, CNN, and PBS all
look moderate, unbias, balanced. Like the New York Times! To a
conservative, they all seem liberal.

Where I start to worry is when people declare in all seriousness that
the broadcast networks are Republican-leaning! I haven't yet met
anyone who believes that Fox is a liberal conspiracy, but that's
probably because I live in a college town. I bet they're out there!
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Wdtabor]

>
>That's because you have conservative leanings. To a liberal, Fox would
>look right-wing.
>
>To the same liberal, the major broadcast networks, CNN, and PBS all
>look moderate, unbias, balanced. Like the New York Times! To a
>conservative, they all seem liberal.
>

There is a difference. While Fox's Opinion shows, like Hannity and Combs, have
a conservative slant, their actual newscasts are quite balanced.

CNN, PBS and the Broadcast Alphabet news have a bias in their news reporting
itself. That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice of
what IS news.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Jay Honeck]

> CNN, PBS and the Broadcast Alphabet news have a bias in their news
> reporting
> itself. That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice
> of
> what IS news.

A perfect example:

Yesterday, a new report on WMD in Iraq was released. In it, they reported
finding no WMD -- but NPR reported that they DID find evidence of intent to
build WMD when sanctions were lifted. The author of the report stressed
that Saddam had every intention of building WMD the moment inspectors
left -- which would have happened in the absence of pressure from the U.S..

Thus, although no actual weapons have been found, the report says that WMD
were "in the works" and presented a clear danger, had the U.S. not applied
pressure. It went on to say that Saddam would not have hesitated to use
those WMD once he had them again (remember, he had WMD before) in his
arsenal.

Was ANY of this reported on CBS/ABC/NBC or my local, Gannett-owned
newspaper? Nope.

Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but they
report the WHOLE truth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Was ANY of this reported on CBS/ABC/NBC or my local, Gannett-owned
> newspaper? Nope.
> Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but they
> report the WHOLE truth.

I'm pretty sure I heard the same thing that NPR reported, on several
different CBS/ABC/NBC stations in the DC area.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[John Harlow]

> Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but
> they report the WHOLE truth.

For the best in news reporting, watch "The Daily Show" with Jon Stewart.

Watch tonight as O'Reilly himself makes a guest appearance.

[Jim Rosinski]

Cub Driver > wrote

> >Dunno whether my fairly infrequent posts to this NG have resulted in
> >folks labeling me "sensible", or otherwise. But my $0.02 says Fox
> >News is the only game in town for anyone looking for balanced coverage
> >from TV news.
>
> That's because you have conservative leanings. To a liberal, Fox would
> look right-wing.

It's too bad so many folks jump to black and white judgements about
ones political leanings based on such a minimal amount of information.
At least Cub Driver appears to have read what I wrote. Which is more
than can be said for the likes of Thomas Borchert, who disgraces
himself with the following juvenile tripe so unfortunately common on
Usenet:

> Bruhaha! OMG! You guys are hilarious.

Who "you guys" are is left a mystery, probably because Mr. Borchert
lacks either the ability or the intellectual honesty to respond to the
substance of what I wrote.

For the record, I oppose the war in Iraq, am pro-abortion, and think
the Patriot Act was a very bad thing. Now to Cub Driver, how is that
consistent with "conservative leanings"? And for Thomas Borchert, who
are the "you guys" this puts me in league with? I'm not holding my
breath on any thoughtful answer from Mr. Borchert.

Cub Driver also writes:

> Where I start to worry is when people declare in all seriousness that
> the broadcast networks are Republican-leaning!

Yup. Hear it all the time on Air America radio.

Jim Rosinski

[Henry Kisor]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:oQb9d.138603$wV.119360@attbi_s54...
>> CNN, PBS and the Broadcast Alphabet news have a bias in their news
>> reporting
>> itself. That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice
>> of
>> what IS news.
>
> A perfect example:
>
> Yesterday, a new report on WMD in Iraq was released. In it, they
> reported finding no WMD -- but NPR reported that they DID find evidence of
> intent to build WMD when sanctions were lifted. The author of the report
> stressed that Saddam had every intention of building WMD the moment
> inspectors left -- which would have happened in the absence of pressure
> from the U.S..
>
This is the actual language from the actual report (I got it from the BBC,
but the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times also had it):

"There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of evidence
suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to return
to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "

Perhaps "fragmentary," "circumstantial" and :suggesting" don't quite add up
to a done deal.

Henry

[Stefan]

Wdtabor wrote:

> That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice of
> what IS news.

This is the first time I agree with you. Of course, "their" can stand
for everything.

> ... their actual newscasts are quite balanced.

Here, my agreement already finishes. (Again, no matter what "their"
stands for.) There is no such thing as a balanced view. Every view is
biased by definition. Hence there is no such thing a balanced choice of
news. More to the point, there even is no such thing as an absolute truth.

Liberals (I mean, true liberals) tend to know this. After all, this is
the core of the word "liberal", or at least was, before it has been
politically abused.

Stefan

[G.R. Patterson III]

Henry Kisor wrote:
>
> Perhaps "fragmentary," "circumstantial" and :suggesting" don't quite add up
> to a done deal.

The individual I heard interviewed on NPR yesterday stated that Saddam told him that
himself during recent interviews.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Jim Rosinski]

(Wdtabor) wrote

> CNN, PBS and the Broadcast Alphabet news have a bias in their news reporting
> itself. That bias is not so much by reporting untruth but by their choice of
> what IS news.

The recent fiasco at See BS excepted, of course. But that incident was
relatively rare, I think, in terms of media bias manifesting itself in
the presentation of outright fabrications as truth. I agree with you
that the choice of what IS news does play an important role in
defining bias, but the SLANT put on each story is also critical. Here
are two examples, hopelessly outdated because it's been a decade or
more since I regularly watched broadcast TV news.

o Carole Simpson of ABC News did a story on daycare centers in France.
Fine, at the time Europe had a much more extensive daycare network
than the U.S. Maybe that's news, maybe not. But the report was riddled
with additional fluff about how wonderful it was that these centers
were "free", and poor folks didn't have to worry about the burden of
cost. Unnecessary bias that caused me to reject the entire report as
unobjective.

o While ATT was fighting to avoid being broken up (20 some years
ago?), Dan Rather commented on the strongarm tactics being employed by
the (then) giant phone company that perhaps they should change their
motto from "Reach out and touch someone" to "Reach out and crush
someone". I kid you not.

Jim Rosinski

[Jim Rosinski]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but they
> report the WHOLE truth.

How do you know?

That's actually a serious question, I wasn't being flippant. I can
cite 2 specific examples where NPR left out critical information from
stories (which I'll spare you unless you want to hear them). And
that's a lot, considering how rarely I can stomach listening to their
biased reporting.

Jim Rosinski

[Jay Honeck]

>> Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but they
>> report the WHOLE truth.
>
> How do you know?

Well, I read extensively. I subscribe to two newspapers, Newsweek, and (of
course) I read Yahoo news all day long.

Can we EVER know that we're getting the "whole truth"? Of course not. But
NPR, due to its non-commercial format, does very well.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:


>
> Can we EVER know that we're getting the "whole truth"? Of course not. But
> NPR, due to its non-commercial format, does very well.

Public radio and TV are as commercial as regular broadcast and cable
radio and TV.

[Brian Westley]

Bob Noel > writes:
>In article >, Brian
>Westley > wrote:

>> >> ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
>> >> people. Hardly an attack.
>>
>> >Except the Boy Scouts is a private organization.
>>
>> That wasn't decided UNTIL the courts ruled when the ACLU brought the
>> lawsuit;

>It was already known that the BSA is a private organization.

Nope; the Dale case hinged on whether the BSA was a "public
accommodation" or not.

>Perhaps it wasn't legally determined until the case, but the BSA
>being a private organization falls into the duh category.

Not when government agencies sponsor BSA units; the government
can't run youth groups that exclude atheists.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

[Brian Westley]

"Dave Stadt" > writes:
>"Brian Westley" > wrote in message
. ..
>> "Tom S." > writes:
>> >"Paul Tomblin" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> In a previous article, "C J Campbell"
>> > said:
>> ...
>> >> >ACLU's attack on the Boy Scouts is legendary. Apparently ACLU does not
>> >> >believe in freedom of association, either, if it involves groups that
>it
>> >> >does not like.
>> >>
>> >> ACLU attempted to prevent the Boy Scouts from discriminating against
>> >> people. Hardly an attack.
>>
>> >Except the Boy Scouts is a private organization.
>>
>> That wasn't decided UNTIL the courts ruled when the ACLU brought the
>> lawsuit; you can hardly fault the ACLU for arguing its side of a case
>> (much of which was based on the fact that many government agencies
>> sponsor BSA units. Note that I'm not talking about schools allowing BSA
>> units to meet; there were, and still are, lots of public schools and
>> other government agencies that own & operate BSA units.

>How does an organization "own" a BSA unit?

The BSA itself says the sponsor "owns and operates" the unit,
because it's just a youth group started by that organization
that is using the BSA program. If a public school decides to
start a soccer team, they "own" it. The problem is when a
school decides to start a Scout unit, because the school can't
exclude people on the basis of religious belief the way the
BSA requires.

---
Merlyn LeRoy

[Jim Rosinski]

Stefan > wrote

> More to the point, there even is no such thing as an absolute truth.

Right. There are absolutely no absolutes. If you see the
self-inconsistency in those words, you should be able to see it in
yours as well.

Jim Rosinski

[Stefan]

Jim Rosinski wrote:

> Right. There are absolutely no absolutes. If you see the
> self-inconsistency in those words, you should be able to see it in
> yours as well.

Surprize, this was one of the main philosophical problems the humanists
encountered. Descarte's solution was cogito, ergo sum. This solution is
broadly accepted since the 17th century. Maybe I'm slightly less stupid
than you might think.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Jim Rosinski wrote:

> Right. There are absolutely no absolutes. If you see the
> self-inconsistency in those words, you should be able to see it in
> yours as well.

Surprize, this was one of the main philosophical problems the humanists
encountered. Descartes offered the solution cogito, ergo sum. This
solution has been broadly accepted since the 17th century. Maybe I'm
slightly less stupid than you might think.

Stefan

[Cub Driver]

In July I went to a dinner party where there was a guest from England.
When the subject of NPR came up, he said: What's that? Without
thinking, I said: "National Partisan Radio."

Omigod! The Good People at table were so upset their teeth were
chattering.

Sally bawled me out afterward.

Sometimes I feel like a character in a New Yorker cartoon, where the
clueless husband is leaving the party and having his sins pointed out
by his wife.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:13:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Can we EVER know that we're getting the "whole truth"? Of course not. But
>NPR, due to its non-commercial format, does very well.
>--

Jay, you should get the Wall Street Journal. Hey! Business expense!

The editorial page and the Leisure & Arts page (book reviews etc) are
refreshingly and intelligently right-wing. The news pages are neutral.
Some of the opinion columns are liberal (especially the weekly op-ed
from Albert Hunt, the WSJ bureau chief in Washington, who is as
left-wing as the editorial page is right-wing).

I get up at 5 o'clock and do my online chores over cereal and coffee.
(God, I love the aftertaste of coffee at 5:27 a.m., which it is at the
moment.) Then I wash up. Then I go out to the road and get the WSJ,
which I read over the second cup of coffee.

By 7 a.m. I am alert, informed, opinionated, and ready to earn a
living.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On 7 Oct 2004 10:10:28 -0700, (Jim Rosinski) wrote:

>Here
>are two examples, hopelessly outdated because it's been a decade or
>more since I regularly watched broadcast TV news.

Okay, here's a more recent one, from NPR:

There was the usual priestly sex scandal in Austria: somebody diddled
a seminarian. The reporter, who was English, added a sentence to this
effect: "The Catholic church is going to continue to have these
scandals until it rethinks its position on celibacy and marriage."

She was so reflexively opposed to the church's doctrine that it never
occurred to her that the prospect of marrying a fine plump Austrian
woman would hardly have deterred the Herr Vater from chasing
seminarians, if that's where his preference lay.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Thomas Borchert]

Cub,

> There was the usual priestly sex scandal in Austria: somebody diddled
> a seminarian.
>

That's one way to put it. Destroying the life of a fellow human while
abusing a position of power given by the Catholic sect, err, Church,
would be another. Possibly a less tasteless view.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, you should get the Wall Street Journal. Hey! Business expense!

I love the Wall Street Journal!

Sadly, the WSJ distributor in Iowa City is such a useless piece of crap that
I can't stomach the thought of paying for the kind of horrible customer
service they provide. Their idea of "service" is to throw the paper in the
street.

It's one of the downsides of being in newspapers for 20+ years. I still
know everyone!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> She was so reflexively opposed to the church's doctrine that it never
> occurred to her that the prospect of marrying a fine plump Austrian
> woman would hardly have deterred the Herr Vater from chasing
> seminarians, if that's where his preference lay.

Maybe that's why I like NPR? Religiously and, in some ways, socially -- I'm
a "liberal"? (I actually agree with the reporter, although her comment
doesn't belong in a "news" report.)

However, fiscally, morally (yes, I separate that from religion),
domestically, and in other ways, socially, I'm a True Conservative.

Which is why I am screaming (along with millions of my fellow Americans) for
a viable third party.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Harlow]

Cub Driver wrote:
> In July I went to a dinner party where there was a guest from England.
> When the subject of NPR came up, he said: What's that? Without
> thinking, I said: "National Partisan Radio."
>
> Omigod! The Good People at table were so upset their teeth were
> chattering.

Wow. You hang out with some really uptight people.

[John Harlow]

> Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

Are you the same "Dan Ford" which publishes the above site?

If so, you have one helluva lot of nerve in joining in on a thread on
unbiased reporting.

[Jim Rosinski]

Stefan > wrote

> > Right. There are absolutely no absolutes. If you see the
> > self-inconsistency in those words, you should be able to see it in
> > yours as well.
>
> Surprize, this was one of the main philosophical problems the humanists
> encountered. Descarte's solution was cogito, ergo sum. This solution is
> broadly accepted since the 17th century. Maybe I'm slightly less stupid
> than you might think.

Actually I didn't mean it that way at all. If my words seemed
patronizing, it was only out of respect for the presumption (based on
some trivial grammar errors and your return address) that English is
not your first language.

As to the substance of your post, maybe I'm dense but I don't see how
"cogito, ergo sum" explains why self-inconsistency is acceptable.

Jim Rosinski

[Thomas Borchert]

John,

> Are you the same "Dan Ford" which publishes the above site?
>
> If so, you have one helluva lot of nerve in joining in on a thread on
> unbiased reporting.
>

It says so in his sig.

Stunning!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[jim rosinski]

John Harlow wrote:

>>Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org
>
> Are you the same "Dan Ford" which publishes the above site?
>
> If so, you have one helluva lot of nerve in joining in on a thread on
> unbiased reporting.

Why? The issue is biased reporting, not biased opinions. Mr. Ford has
never made a secret of his conservative views. Even the name of the
website you mention advertises which side of the political spectrum he's on.

I read Maureen Dowd's column (NYT Op-ed columnist) all the time. I've no
problem with her saying "Bush is an idiot". Problem is, when opinions
like that bleed over into the ostensibly "news" portions of the paper.

Jim Rosinski

[Wdtabor]

In article <Xkv9d.144780$wV.55055@attbi_s54>, "Jay Honeck"
> writes:

>
>Maybe that's why I like NPR? Religiously and, in some ways, socially -- I'm
>a "liberal"? (I actually agree with the reporter, although her comment
>doesn't belong in a "news" report.)
>
>However, fiscally, morally (yes, I separate that from religion),
>domestically, and in other ways, socially, I'm a True Conservative.
>
>Which is why I am screaming (along with millions of my fellow Americans) for
>a viable third party.

We've been waiting for you. www.lp.org

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Jim Rosinski]

"John Harlow" > wrote

> > Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org
>
> Are you the same "Dan Ford" which publishes the above site?
>
> If so, you have one helluva lot of nerve in joining in on a thread on
> unbiased reporting.

Why? The issue is biased reporting, not biased opinions. Mr. Ford has never
made a secret of his conservative views. Even the name of the website you
mention advertises which side of the political spectrum he's on.

I read Maureen Dowd's column (NYT Op-ed columnist) all the time. I've no
problem with her saying "Bush is an idiot". Problem is, when opinions like
that bleed over into the ostensibly "news" portions of the paper.

Jim Rosinski

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:57:40 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Sadly, the WSJ distributor in Iowa City is such a useless piece of crap that
>I can't stomach the thought of paying for the kind of horrible customer
>service they provide. Their idea of "service" is to throw the paper in the
>street.

WSJ will mail it if you ask. It won't be there for morning coffee, but
you actually get more work done when the paper is an afternoon
pleasure.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:57:40 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Sadly, the WSJ distributor in Iowa City is such a useless piece of crap that
>I can't stomach the thought of paying for the kind of horrible customer
>service they provide. Their idea of "service" is to throw the paper in the
>street.

WSJ will mail it if you ask. It won't be there for morning coffee, but
you actually get more work done when the paper is an afternoon
pleasure.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:45:40 -0400, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>> Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org
>
>Are you the same "Dan Ford" which publishes the above site?
>
>If so, you have one helluva lot of nerve in joining in on a thread on
>unbiased reporting.

The same. And you'll notice that I set up a separate site to air my
political views. Viva Bush is (duh!) not reporting but political
advocacy. Notice I didn't call it National Public Website, and that I
don't take guvmint money.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 10:45:40 -0400, "John Harlow"
> wrote:

>> Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org
>
>Are you the same "Dan Ford" which publishes the above site?
>
>If so, you have one helluva lot of nerve in joining in on a thread on
>unbiased reporting.

The same. And you'll notice that I set up a separate site to air my
political views. Viva Bush is (duh!) not reporting but political
advocacy. Notice I didn't call it National Public Website, and that I
don't take guvmint money.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com
Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org

[Martin Hotze]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:13:49 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Well, I read extensively. I subscribe to two newspapers, Newsweek, and (of
>course) I read Yahoo news all day long.

You should also hook up to out of state sources ... like BBC or the like.
Just to have a broader perspective.

#m

--
Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
ownership of capital. (Jay Honeck in r.a.p.)

[Martin Hotze]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:13:49 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

>Well, I read extensively. I subscribe to two newspapers, Newsweek, and (of
>course) I read Yahoo news all day long.

You should also hook up to out of state sources ... like BBC or the like.
Just to have a broader perspective.

#m

--
Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
ownership of capital. (Jay Honeck in r.a.p.)

[Jay Honeck]

> You should also hook up to out of state sources ... like BBC or the like.
> Just to have a broader perspective.

Actually, BBC is on our local NPR news station every day.

They're great till they get to the worldwide cricket scores...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> You should also hook up to out of state sources ... like BBC or the like.
> Just to have a broader perspective.

Actually, BBC is on our local NPR news station every day.

They're great till they get to the worldwide cricket scores...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Tom S.]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:13:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >Can we EVER know that we're getting the "whole truth"? Of course not.
But
> >NPR, due to its non-commercial format, does very well.
> >--
>
> Jay, you should get the Wall Street Journal. Hey! Business expense!
>
Even better is Investors Business Daily...with it's higher quality
free-market approach than the WSJ and it's Keynesian approach.

[Tom S.]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 23:13:49 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >Can we EVER know that we're getting the "whole truth"? Of course not.
But
> >NPR, due to its non-commercial format, does very well.
> >--
>
> Jay, you should get the Wall Street Journal. Hey! Business expense!
>
Even better is Investors Business Daily...with it's higher quality
free-market approach than the WSJ and it's Keynesian approach.

[Stefan]

Jim Rosinski wrote:

> Actually I didn't mean it that way at all. If my words seemed

Oh! Then I'm sorry. I interpreted your remark as: "Hey, you dumb, you're
not even recognizing that you're inconsitent yourself" or something to
that effect. After all, this is usenet...

> patronizing, it was only out of respect for the presumption (based on
> some trivial grammar errors and your return address) that English is
> not your first language.

Actually, it's not even my second, and I know that I'm far from perfect.
But then, judging by usenet articles, I have my doubts whether many
native English speakers score much better. :-(
(Before somebody jumps at me: It's the same here, sadly.)

> As to the substance of your post, maybe I'm dense but I don't see how
> "cogito, ergo sum" explains why self-inconsistency is acceptable.

Sometimes I allow my thoughts to leap, and maybe the analogy is poor.
The humanists: I doubt everything, but I need an undoubtable starting
point. Me: There are absolutely no absolutes. (More exactly, I said: The
truth is, there is no truth.) You need to accept an axiom as starting
point to solve both problems. If you think about it, that cogito thing
is an axiom, too.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Jim Rosinski wrote:

> Actually I didn't mean it that way at all. If my words seemed

Oh! Then I'm sorry. I interpreted your remark as: "Hey, you dumb, you're
not even recognizing that you're inconsitent yourself" or something to
that effect. After all, this is usenet...

> patronizing, it was only out of respect for the presumption (based on
> some trivial grammar errors and your return address) that English is
> not your first language.

Actually, it's not even my second, and I know that I'm far from perfect.
But then, judging by usenet articles, I have my doubts whether many
native English speakers score much better. :-(
(Before somebody jumps at me: It's the same here, sadly.)

> As to the substance of your post, maybe I'm dense but I don't see how
> "cogito, ergo sum" explains why self-inconsistency is acceptable.

Sometimes I allow my thoughts to leap, and maybe the analogy is poor.
The humanists: I doubt everything, but I need an undoubtable starting
point. Me: There are absolutely no absolutes. (More exactly, I said: The
truth is, there is no truth.) You need to accept an axiom as starting
point to solve both problems. If you think about it, that cogito thing
is an axiom, too.

Stefan

[Ace Pilot]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Jim,
>
> > ut my $0.02 says Fox
> > News is the only game in town for anyone looking for balanced coverage
> > from TV news.
> >
>
> Bruhaha! OMG! You guys are hilarious.

From "A Measure of Media Bias":

"Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news
outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the left
of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures
all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge
Report, and ABC's World News Tonight) were closer to the average
Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of
Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That
is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor
from our sample."

Complete study can be found at:
http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose.pdf

Anyone know of any studies that challenge the assertion that Fox is
centrist?

[Ace Pilot]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> Jim,
>
> > ut my $0.02 says Fox
> > News is the only game in town for anyone looking for balanced coverage
> > from TV news.
> >
>
> Bruhaha! OMG! You guys are hilarious.

From "A Measure of Media Bias":

"Our results show a very significant liberal bias. All of the news
outlets except Fox News' Special Report received a score to the left
of the average member of Congress. Moreover, by one of our measures
all but three of these media outlets (Special Report, the Drudge
Report, and ABC's World News Tonight) were closer to the average
Democrat in Congress than to the median member of the House of
Representatives. One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That
is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor
from our sample."

Complete study can be found at:
http://www.yale.edu/isps/seminars/american_pol/groseclose.pdf

Anyone know of any studies that challenge the assertion that Fox is
centrist?

[Stefan]

Ace Pilot wrote:

> One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
> the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.

It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)

Stefan

[Stefan]

Ace Pilot wrote:

> One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
> the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.

It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)

Stefan

[Jay Honeck]

>> One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
>> the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
>> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
>
> It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
> Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)

There is a "statistical center" of political views that the Yale study most
likely used to determine their results. This has nothing to do with what
you or I believe, if it's done properly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

>> One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
>> the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
>> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
>
> It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
> Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)

There is a "statistical center" of political views that the Yale study most
likely used to determine their results. This has nothing to do with what
you or I believe, if it's done properly.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[John Harlow]

>>> One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
>>> the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
>>> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
>>
>> It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
>> Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)
>
> There is a "statistical center" of political views that the Yale study
> most likely used to determine their results. This has nothing to do with
> what you or I believe, if it's done properly.

All this does is show a statistical center of an opinion, which by
definition is not necessarily correct.

In other words, "Garbage in, garbage out".

[John Harlow]

>>> One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
>>> the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
>>> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
>>
>> It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
>> Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)
>
> There is a "statistical center" of political views that the Yale study
> most likely used to determine their results. This has nothing to do with
> what you or I believe, if it's done properly.

All this does is show a statistical center of an opinion, which by
definition is not necessarily correct.

In other words, "Garbage in, garbage out".

[Thomas Borchert]

Ace,

> Anyone know of any studies that challenge the assertion that Fox is
> centrist?
>

The problem isn't that. It's the underlying assumption that Fox
delivers news.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ace,

> Anyone know of any studies that challenge the assertion that Fox is
> centrist?
>

The problem isn't that. It's the underlying assumption that Fox
delivers news.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"Henry Kisor" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> This is the actual language from the actual report (I got it from the BBC,
> but the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times also had
it):
>
> "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of
evidence
> suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to
return
> to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "
>
> Perhaps "fragmentary," "circumstantial" and :suggesting" don't quite add
up
> to a done deal.

Real researchers use language like that. They know enough to know that they
don't know everything. "Circumstantial," by the way, is the strongest
evidence, contrary to common usage.

Compare the language of real researchers with the complete certitude of
those who have a political agenda.

[C J Campbell]

"Henry Kisor" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> This is the actual language from the actual report (I got it from the BBC,
> but the New York Times, Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times also had
it):
>
> "There is an extensive, yet fragmentary and circumstantial body of
evidence
> suggesting that Saddam pursued a strategy to maintain a capability to
return
> to WMD after sanctions were lifted... "
>
> Perhaps "fragmentary," "circumstantial" and :suggesting" don't quite add
up
> to a done deal.

Real researchers use language like that. They know enough to know that they
don't know everything. "Circumstantial," by the way, is the strongest
evidence, contrary to common usage.

Compare the language of real researchers with the complete certitude of
those who have a political agenda.

[Gig Giacona]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Ace Pilot wrote:
>
>> One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
>> the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
>> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
>
> It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
> Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)
>
> Stefan
>
I think if you had read the the previous post you might have been able to
understand that the report used the US Congress as the measuring stick.

[Gig Giacona]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Ace Pilot wrote:
>
>> One of our measures found that the Drudge Report is
>> the most centrist of all media outlets in our sample. Our other
>> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
>
> It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
> Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)
>
> Stefan
>
I think if you had read the the previous post you might have been able to
understand that the report used the US Congress as the measuring stick.

[Wdtabor]

>Our other
>>> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
>>
>> It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
>> Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>I think if you had read the the previous post you might have been able to
>understand that the report used the US Congress as the measuring stick.

There is an even better measure.

Neal Boortz has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone showing an instance of bias
in a Fox News report (not the opinion shows, the news reports).

It remains unclaimed.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

>Our other
>>> measure found that Fox News' Special Report is the most centrist.
>>
>> It all depends on where the center is in your frame of reference. (Hint:
>> Everybody thinks his own view is balanced.)
>>
>> Stefan
>>
>I think if you had read the the previous post you might have been able to
>understand that the report used the US Congress as the measuring stick.

There is an even better measure.

Neal Boortz has offered a $10,000 reward to anyone showing an instance of bias
in a Fox News report (not the opinion shows, the news reports).

It remains unclaimed.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Paul]

Does anyone remember Bob Edwards on the morning show on NPR?

I used to listen to the guy years ago. Seemed like a real likeable
person and seemed to have a balanced view. Every Friday he would
interview Red Barber, the retired baseball announcer, did it till Red
passed on. Both were the epitomy gentlemenliness. At least it seemed
so to me.

In any event, I believe it was last year, I tuned into Dr. Laura while
driving and Mr. Edwards was on being interviewed about his new book or
some such. I believe the conversation turned to partial birth
abortion and Mr. Edwards expressed a negative view toward the
procedure.

I recall that shortly thereafter Mr. Edwards'
air time was reduced, and within
a very brief period of time he was out on the pretext that they wanted
to bring some fresh "perspectives" to the program. And now, of
course, he is on XM radio
and me being a Sirius subscriber, I no longer hear him.

I think he expressed an opinion that was anathemae to some groups with
influence over at NPR and he was pushed!

So much for freedom of expression and toleration of other views. I
think its
call PC.


Paul D. Hilsenrath

(Jay Masino) wrote in message >...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Was ANY of this reported on CBS/ABC/NBC or my local, Gannett-owned
> > newspaper? Nope.
> > Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but they
> > report the WHOLE truth.
>
> I'm pretty sure I heard the same thing that NPR reported, on several
> different CBS/ABC/NBC stations in the DC area.

[Paul]

Does anyone remember Bob Edwards on the morning show on NPR?

I used to listen to the guy years ago. Seemed like a real likeable
person and seemed to have a balanced view. Every Friday he would
interview Red Barber, the retired baseball announcer, did it till Red
passed on. Both were the epitomy gentlemenliness. At least it seemed
so to me.

In any event, I believe it was last year, I tuned into Dr. Laura while
driving and Mr. Edwards was on being interviewed about his new book or
some such. I believe the conversation turned to partial birth
abortion and Mr. Edwards expressed a negative view toward the
procedure.

I recall that shortly thereafter Mr. Edwards'
air time was reduced, and within
a very brief period of time he was out on the pretext that they wanted
to bring some fresh "perspectives" to the program. And now, of
course, he is on XM radio
and me being a Sirius subscriber, I no longer hear him.

I think he expressed an opinion that was anathemae to some groups with
influence over at NPR and he was pushed!

So much for freedom of expression and toleration of other views. I
think its
call PC.


Paul D. Hilsenrath

(Jay Masino) wrote in message >...
> Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > Was ANY of this reported on CBS/ABC/NBC or my local, Gannett-owned
> > newspaper? Nope.
> > Which is why I listen to NPR. It may be liberal in many ways, but they
> > report the WHOLE truth.
>
> I'm pretty sure I heard the same thing that NPR reported, on several
> different CBS/ABC/NBC stations in the DC area.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ace Pilot wrote:
>
> From "A Measure of Media Bias":
>
> "Our results show a very significant liberal bias....."

This month's "Atlantic" contained an article which touched on why. The author pointed
out that almost all members of the media are well educated and paid well above the
middle class. In addition, the industry is centered around the East Coast. As
individuals, they have the liberal bias prevalent in their class of people, and this
shows in their work.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Ace Pilot wrote:
>
> From "A Measure of Media Bias":
>
> "Our results show a very significant liberal bias....."

This month's "Atlantic" contained an article which touched on why. The author pointed
out that almost all members of the media are well educated and paid well above the
middle class. In addition, the industry is centered around the East Coast. As
individuals, they have the liberal bias prevalent in their class of people, and this
shows in their work.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[Jay Honeck]

> Mr. Edwards was on being interviewed about his new book or
> some such. I believe the conversation turned to partial birth
> abortion and Mr. Edwards expressed a negative view toward the
> procedure.
>
> I recall that shortly thereafter Mr. Edwards'
> air time was reduced, and within
> a very brief period of time he was out on the pretext that they wanted
> to bring some fresh "perspectives" to the program.

I badly miss Bob Edwards, and have never heard this story before.

The whole concept of his being replaced to appeal to a younger demographic
always seemed trumped up to me, but I just figured that he, like so many
others before him, had simply peed in somebody's Wheaties, and had been
shown the door.

It would be truly disappointing if he was fired for expressing an unpopular
(within the liberal community) viewpoint.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> Mr. Edwards was on being interviewed about his new book or
> some such. I believe the conversation turned to partial birth
> abortion and Mr. Edwards expressed a negative view toward the
> procedure.
>
> I recall that shortly thereafter Mr. Edwards'
> air time was reduced, and within
> a very brief period of time he was out on the pretext that they wanted
> to bring some fresh "perspectives" to the program.

I badly miss Bob Edwards, and have never heard this story before.

The whole concept of his being replaced to appeal to a younger demographic
always seemed trumped up to me, but I just figured that he, like so many
others before him, had simply peed in somebody's Wheaties, and had been
shown the door.

It would be truly disappointing if he was fired for expressing an unpopular
(within the liberal community) viewpoint.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Rosinski]

"John Harlow" > wrote

> > There is a "statistical center" of political views that the Yale study
> > most likely used to determine their results. This has nothing to do with
> > what you or I believe, if it's done properly.
>
> All this does is show a statistical center of an opinion, which by
> definition is not necessarily correct.

Hmmm. A statistical center of opinion "by definition is not
necessarily correct". Right up there with "There are absolutely no
absolutes". Monkeys at typewriters could produce more logical
coherency than most of what's been posted in this thread by the left.

Jim Rosinski

"If God is all-powerful, does that mean that He can make a boulder so
heavy that even He couldn't lift it?"

[Jim Rosinski]

"John Harlow" > wrote

> > There is a "statistical center" of political views that the Yale study
> > most likely used to determine their results. This has nothing to do with
> > what you or I believe, if it's done properly.
>
> All this does is show a statistical center of an opinion, which by
> definition is not necessarily correct.

Hmmm. A statistical center of opinion "by definition is not
necessarily correct". Right up there with "There are absolutely no
absolutes". Monkeys at typewriters could produce more logical
coherency than most of what's been posted in this thread by the left.

Jim Rosinski

"If God is all-powerful, does that mean that He can make a boulder so
heavy that even He couldn't lift it?"

[Stefan]

Jim Rosinski wrote:

> Hmmm. A statistical center of opinion "by definition is not
> necessarily correct".

I didn't write that, but anyway: If you read it as "A statistical center
of *opinion* by definition is not necessarily correct (i.e. does not
necessarily reflect the *facts* correctly)", then it makes a lot of sense.

> Right up there with "There are absolutely no absolutes".

I wrote this one (actually, I wrote it somewhat differently). Only a
very small and very simple world can be coherent. As soon as you accept
the the world is a little more complex, you'll have to live with
incoherency. I tell you this as a physicist.

Too many people confound simplicity with simplification.

Stefan

[Stefan]

Jim Rosinski wrote:

> Hmmm. A statistical center of opinion "by definition is not
> necessarily correct".

I didn't write that, but anyway: If you read it as "A statistical center
of *opinion* by definition is not necessarily correct (i.e. does not
necessarily reflect the *facts* correctly)", then it makes a lot of sense.

> Right up there with "There are absolutely no absolutes".

I wrote this one (actually, I wrote it somewhat differently). Only a
very small and very simple world can be coherent. As soon as you accept
the the world is a little more complex, you'll have to live with
incoherency. I tell you this as a physicist.

Too many people confound simplicity with simplification.

Stefan

[John Harlow]

>>> There is a "statistical center" of political views that the Yale
>>> study most likely used to determine their results. This has
>>> nothing to do with what you or I believe, if it's done properly.
>>
>> All this does is show a statistical center of an opinion, which by
>> definition is not necessarily correct.
>
> Hmmm. A statistical center of opinion "by definition is not
> necessarily correct". Right up there with "There are absolutely no
> absolutes". Monkeys at typewriters could produce more logical
> coherency than most of what's been posted in this thread by the left.

What I treid to point out is all the study "discovered" was the compilation
of the personal opinions of the interviewees. "Opinions" are simply that;
not "facts".

Here's another way to think about it:

As most people believe in Christianity, does that make it the "correct"
religion?

(source: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mreligio.html )

[John Harlow]

>>> There is a "statistical center" of political views that the Yale
>>> study most likely used to determine their results. This has
>>> nothing to do with what you or I believe, if it's done properly.
>>
>> All this does is show a statistical center of an opinion, which by
>> definition is not necessarily correct.
>
> Hmmm. A statistical center of opinion "by definition is not
> necessarily correct". Right up there with "There are absolutely no
> absolutes". Monkeys at typewriters could produce more logical
> coherency than most of what's been posted in this thread by the left.

What I treid to point out is all the study "discovered" was the compilation
of the personal opinions of the interviewees. "Opinions" are simply that;
not "facts".

Here's another way to think about it:

As most people believe in Christianity, does that make it the "correct"
religion?

(source: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mreligio.html )

[Ron Natalie]

Paul wrote:

> a very brief period of time he was out on the pretext that they wanted
> to bring some fresh "perspectives" to the program. And now, of
> course, he is on XM radio
> and me being a Sirius subscriber, I no longer hear him.
>
Oh well, I guess you'll have to live with Howard Stern.

[Ron Natalie]

Paul wrote:

> a very brief period of time he was out on the pretext that they wanted
> to bring some fresh "perspectives" to the program. And now, of
> course, he is on XM radio
> and me being a Sirius subscriber, I no longer hear him.
>
Oh well, I guess you'll have to live with Howard Stern.

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> writes:

>>
>> "Our results show a very significant liberal bias....."
>
>This month's "Atlantic" contained an article which touched on why. The author
>pointed
>out that almost all members of the media are well educated and paid well
>above the
>middle class. In addition, the industry is centered around the East Coast. As
>individuals, they have the liberal bias prevalent in their class of people,
>and this
>shows in their work.
>

I have a different theory.

Engineering, technology, medicine and other rigorous degree paths require
advanced math.

You can get a journalism degree with almost no math.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, "G.R. Patterson III"
> writes:

>>
>> "Our results show a very significant liberal bias....."
>
>This month's "Atlantic" contained an article which touched on why. The author
>pointed
>out that almost all members of the media are well educated and paid well
>above the
>middle class. In addition, the industry is centered around the East Coast. As
>individuals, they have the liberal bias prevalent in their class of people,
>and this
>shows in their work.
>

I have a different theory.

Engineering, technology, medicine and other rigorous degree paths require
advanced math.

You can get a journalism degree with almost no math.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:GxR9d.360536$Fg5.219573@attbi_s53...
> > You should also hook up to out of state sources ... like BBC or the
like.
> > Just to have a broader perspective.
>
> Actually, BBC is on our local NPR news station every day.
>
> They're great till they get to the worldwide cricket scores...

You'd love the shipping forecast on Radio 4.

Paul

[Jay Honeck]

>> Actually, BBC is on our local NPR news station every day.
>>
>> They're great till they get to the worldwide cricket scores...
>
> You'd love the shipping forecast on Radio 4.

"Shipping forecast"?

What's that, a weather forecast for the English Channel? The North
Atlantic?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Bgjcd.260368$D%.119919@attbi_s51...
> >> Actually, BBC is on our local NPR news station every day.
> >>
> >> They're great till they get to the worldwide cricket scores...
> >
> > You'd love the shipping forecast on Radio 4.
>
> "Shipping forecast"?
>
> What's that, a weather forecast for the English Channel? The North
> Atlantic?

Pretty much the sea all around the British Isles.

I'll record it for you and e-mail it...

Paul

[Paul Sengupta]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Bgjcd.260368$D%.119919@attbi_s51...
> >> Actually, BBC is on our local NPR news station every day.
> >>
> >> They're great till they get to the worldwide cricket scores...
> >
> > You'd love the shipping forecast on Radio 4.
>
> "Shipping forecast"?
>
> What's that, a weather forecast for the English Channel? The North
> Atlantic?

Actually:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/shipping.shtml

You have it in text format, but for maximum effect, click on the
bit which says: "Click to listen to the shipping forecast".

The one at 00:48 is followed by the forecast for inshore waters:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/datafiles/inshore.html

All together it goes on from 00:48 until 01:00. 12 minutes of weird
names and numbers. You could always click on "Listen Live" at 00:48
British Summer Time (23:48 UTC). From typing this, this is in just under
an hour. Can't listen to Real Audio stuff on my work connection (behind
a firewall) so can't tell you if the forecast after 01:00 on the web also
includes the inshore waters.

Info on interpreting the shipping forecast:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/leisuremarine/shipping/index.html

Shipping forecast areas are here:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/leisure/shiparea.html
Inshore waters forecast points are here:
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/leisure/iswfplace.html
Wind is in Beaufort scale values.
http://www.met-office.gov.uk/education/curriculum/leaflets/beaufort.html

Some more information on the shipping forecast towards the end
of this article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1798629.stm

Paul