Comprehensive security

[Roger Long]

I watched the webcast of the TSA chief's meeting with AOPA. I found myself
going back and forth over his responses to the questions. Why you have to
prove your citizenship to get a glider rating but not to rent a 14 ton
truck? Why can't foreign pilots who fly 747's into and over Alaska do
seaplane training during their layovers?

I'm a writer so have above average understanding of the language that
divides us but I couldn't figure out what his responses had to do with the
questions or even what he was getting at.

I got the general drift of some sort of theory of overall security. Today I
had an experience that suddenly made it crystal clear. He really was making
perfect sense. I just wasn't getting it.

Here is how the comprehensive security he was talking about works:

I was buzzed out onto the ramp and checked to make sure my badge was
visible. Oops! It was still tucked inside my jacket and out of sight. Then,
I got into my lethal 172 and flew around above unwitting citizens heads for
an hour.

I landed and turned the plane over to a new member going for his checkout
and decided to stop along the runway to watch him do touch and gos. There's
a nice parking area that the pre 911 design included for the benefit of
people who like to watch planes.

Within 30 seconds, there was a cop behind me asking what I was doing there.
I showed him my ramp pass and told him that was my plane up there and I was
watching a new co-owner fly it. "Well, you can watch from the terminal.", he
snarled. As I pulled away, he moved back into his cooping spot and I realize
he was irritated because I had interrupted his plane watching with my threat
to public safety.

I drove down to the terminal and turned right onto the old access road that
now deadends along the runway. There are some storage containers along the
fence and a number of people were parked and sitting on their hoods watching
planes.

I went over behind the container and watched my plane fly. I was out of
sight of anyone except pilots on the runway, screened by bushes and the
container. If you were going to take a pot shot at a plane with a rifle or a
stinger, this would be the place. Did I see any cops? Hell no. There weren't
even any tire tracks from vehicles turning around to check this area. The
plane watchers up the road, who could easily be seen from the tower were
clearly settled in for a long session of basking in the sun and watching
planes.

Why is plane watching "dangerous" at the most public and intended place and
not at the one where you could set up a mortar, a fox hole, and a Stinger
battery and probably be there for hours before anyone caught on? If a
policeman is needed full time to chase away plane watchers so they don't
provide coverage for terrorists, which spot should receive priority?

Somewhere in Stone's rambling, I think I got the message. The priority spot
is out by the main road where everyone has to pass by because this will
provide the maximum public reassurance. There aren't the resources to have
cops everywhere. Having one out of sight in the bushes at the end of the
road doesn't meet the true objectives of comprehensive security.


--

Roger Long

[Jay Honeck]

> Somewhere in Stone's rambling, I think I got the message. The priority
> spot is out by the main road where everyone has to pass by because this
> will provide the maximum public reassurance. There aren't the resources to
> have cops everywhere. Having one out of sight in the bushes at the end of
> the road doesn't meet the true objectives of comprehensive security.

Precisely.

Public security, as any cop will tell you over a beer, is an illusion. But
it's necessary to perpetuate the illusion, or society utterly breaks down.

To see this phenomenon in action, check out Haiti currently. Or Watts
during the '68 riots. Or Paris in the French Revolution. As soon as the
facade of public security breaks down, all hell breaks loose.

Now, of course, we must perpetuate the illusion that we are safe from
terrorists. It's been an effective illusion on the American people --
perhaps even working on the terrorists themselves?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[OtisWinslow]

You got it .. window dressing.


"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
>I watched the webcast of the TSA chief's meeting with AOPA. I found myself
>going back and forth over his responses to the questions. Why you have to
>prove your citizenship to get a glider rating but not to rent a 14 ton
>truck? Why can't foreign pilots who fly 747's into and over Alaska do
>seaplane training during their layovers?
>
> I'm a writer so have above average understanding of the language that
> divides us but I couldn't figure out what his responses had to do with the
> questions or even what he was getting at.
>
> I got the general drift of some sort of theory of overall security. Today
> I had an experience that suddenly made it crystal clear. He really was
> making perfect sense. I just wasn't getting it.
>
> Here is how the comprehensive security he was talking about works:
>
> I was buzzed out onto the ramp and checked to make sure my badge was
> visible. Oops! It was still tucked inside my jacket and out of sight.
> Then, I got into my lethal 172 and flew around above unwitting citizens
> heads for an hour.
>
> I landed and turned the plane over to a new member going for his checkout
> and decided to stop along the runway to watch him do touch and gos.
> There's a nice parking area that the pre 911 design included for the
> benefit of people who like to watch planes.
>
> Within 30 seconds, there was a cop behind me asking what I was doing
> there. I showed him my ramp pass and told him that was my plane up there
> and I was watching a new co-owner fly it. "Well, you can watch from the
> terminal.", he snarled. As I pulled away, he moved back into his cooping
> spot and I realize he was irritated because I had interrupted his plane
> watching with my threat to public safety.
>
> I drove down to the terminal and turned right onto the old access road
> that now deadends along the runway. There are some storage containers
> along the fence and a number of people were parked and sitting on their
> hoods watching planes.
>
> I went over behind the container and watched my plane fly. I was out of
> sight of anyone except pilots on the runway, screened by bushes and the
> container. If you were going to take a pot shot at a plane with a rifle or
> a stinger, this would be the place. Did I see any cops? Hell no. There
> weren't even any tire tracks from vehicles turning around to check this
> area. The plane watchers up the road, who could easily be seen from the
> tower were clearly settled in for a long session of basking in the sun and
> watching planes.
>
> Why is plane watching "dangerous" at the most public and intended place
> and not at the one where you could set up a mortar, a fox hole, and a
> Stinger battery and probably be there for hours before anyone caught on?
> If a policeman is needed full time to chase away plane watchers so they
> don't provide coverage for terrorists, which spot should receive priority?
>
> Somewhere in Stone's rambling, I think I got the message. The priority
> spot is out by the main road where everyone has to pass by because this
> will provide the maximum public reassurance. There aren't the resources to
> have cops everywhere. Having one out of sight in the bushes at the end of
> the road doesn't meet the true objectives of comprehensive security.
>
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
>

[C Kingsbury]

After 9/11, Massport mandated all aircraft tied down at BED had to have an
external lock of some kind. Also, everyone had to get badged, fingerprinted,
undergo TSA training, and of course pay $75 for the privilege. Suffice it to
say access was pretty tight.

Anyway, I used to have a chain and padlock on the tail of the 172 I co-own
there. One day I found I couldn't open the lock anymore, as the hasp had
been deformed when a windstorm tried to blow the plane away. So I went to
Home Depot and picked up a gigantic bolt-cutter, 36" long and bright yellow.
I entered through the gate, parked, walked across the ramp (right beneath
the tower) carrying my new toy, walked right up to the plane and without
further ado chopped the lock off.

Go figure, nobody stopped by to ask me precisely what I thought I was doing.
Oh, and there's a state trooper office on the field, with at least 1-2
officers there almost all the time, so they could have gotten there very
quickly.

-cwk.

[Jay Honeck]

> Go figure, nobody stopped by to ask me precisely what I thought I was
> doing.

I used to marvel at this all the time.

In my last business, we had over 60 newspaper vending machines in one
county. If one didn't sell well, I'd have one of my guys move it to
another location.

Occasionally, I'd move one myself. I'd simply pull up in my unmarked pickup
truck, back up to the machine that was in front of a restaurant or store,
and -- without further ado -- I'd lift the entire machine into the back of
the truck.

I did this for years. Never -- not even once -- did ANYONE question me, or
what I was doing.

In my experience, if you act like you know what you're doing, you can get
away with almost anything.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> In my experience, if you act like you know what you're doing, you can get
> away with almost anything.

A case study in one of my classes (back in the dark ages) was a company that used to
shoplift from stores and then use the examples to help the companies beef up their
security. Two of their employees walked into a Sears&Roebuck and walked out with a
canoe. They got caught when they went back for the paddles. They stated exactly what
you just said -- the key to getting away with it is to look like you're supposed to
be doing whatever you're doing.

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

[Marco Leon]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:zpcgd.23060$R05.12772@attbi_s53...
> Now, of course, we must perpetuate the illusion that we are safe from
> terrorists. It's been an effective illusion on the American people --
> perhaps even working on the terrorists themselves?

True, but you can't entirely attribute the fact that there has not been a
single successful al-Qaeda terrorist attack on US soil on pure coincidence.

Marco

[Marco Leon]

Anyone who knows anything about national security knows that a terrorist
will not be likely caught at the scene minutes before the act.

Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small price
to pay to enjoy the freedom we have. Let's just hope the real keepers of our
security that are behind the scenes are doing their job.

Marco Leon


"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> After 9/11, Massport mandated all aircraft tied down at BED had to have an
> external lock of some kind. Also, everyone had to get badged,
fingerprinted,
> undergo TSA training, and of course pay $75 for the privilege. Suffice it
to
> say access was pretty tight.
>
> Anyway, I used to have a chain and padlock on the tail of the 172 I co-own
> there. One day I found I couldn't open the lock anymore, as the hasp had
> been deformed when a windstorm tried to blow the plane away. So I went to
> Home Depot and picked up a gigantic bolt-cutter, 36" long and bright
yellow.
> I entered through the gate, parked, walked across the ramp (right beneath
> the tower) carrying my new toy, walked right up to the plane and without
> further ado chopped the lock off.
>
> Go figure, nobody stopped by to ask me precisely what I thought I was
doing.
> Oh, and there's a state trooper office on the field, with at least 1-2
> officers there almost all the time, so they could have gotten there very
> quickly.
>
> -cwk.
>
>

[zatatime]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 02:53:30 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>In my experience, if you act like you know what you're doing, you can get
>away with almost anything.


You hit the nail on the head. In another thread someone stated that
the "war on terror" is more a psychological thing than anything else.
It's the same in this case, and can work against us as much as it
works for us. If you act like you belong there, you can get a way
with murder (literally).

z

[zatatime]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 15:28:06 GMT, "G.R. Patterson III"
> wrote:

>Two of their employees walked into a Sears&Roebuck and walked out with a
>canoe. They got caught when they went back for the paddles.


That's funny!

z

[Roger Long]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
...

> Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small
> price
> to pay to enjoy the freedom we have.

It's is NOT, NOT, NOT, a relatively small price. You've got it all EXACTLY
backwards.

The terrorists could never take our freedom. Only we (or our government if
completely ceases to become "we") can do that. The terrorists are not
powerful enough. They can knock down buildings, shut down city transit
systems, kill millions, and we will still be free if the country has the
guts to keep ourselves free.

You are not talking about freedom but only the illusion of infinitesimally
greater safety from violent acts that, while they have a huge impact on the
national psyche, are almost vanishingly unlikely to happen to any
individual. This illusion is created not by actually making us feel safer
but by creating a pervasive atmosphere of fear such that having freedoms
taken away brings us back to where we were before. When something is taken
away and then given back, you haven't gained anything.

The price for this illusion is innumerable changes in small things that used
to enrich our lives like parents stopping along the airport runway to watch
the planes with their children. Each may be inconsequential but in sum they
make up the essence of the freedom that this nation has always cherished.

The tragedy is that these changes have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do
with increasing our safety and everything to do with an illusion that is
being increasingly manipulated by the government for purposes of achieving
the power to change the society in ways that would be considered radical if
the party currently in power were not labeled conservative.

Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting people
to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are obnoxious but they make the trains run
on time and I've got a job now."

The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view
expressed in your post is a far, far greater threat to our nation than the
terrorists will ever be.

No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are free
to give it up.

--

Roger Long

[Aviv Hod]

Roger Long wrote:
> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small
>>price
>>to pay to enjoy the freedom we have.
>
>
> It's is NOT, NOT, NOT, a relatively small price. You've got it all EXACTLY
> backwards.
>
> The terrorists could never take our freedom. Only we (or our government if
> completely ceases to become "we") can do that. The terrorists are not
> powerful enough. They can knock down buildings, shut down city transit
> systems, kill millions, and we will still be free if the country has the
> guts to keep ourselves free.
>
> You are not talking about freedom but only the illusion of infinitesimally
> greater safety from violent acts that, while they have a huge impact on the
> national psyche, are almost vanishingly unlikely to happen to any
> individual. This illusion is created not by actually making us feel safer
> but by creating a pervasive atmosphere of fear such that having freedoms
> taken away brings us back to where we were before. When something is taken
> away and then given back, you haven't gained anything.
>
> The price for this illusion is innumerable changes in small things that used
> to enrich our lives like parents stopping along the airport runway to watch
> the planes with their children. Each may be inconsequential but in sum they
> make up the essence of the freedom that this nation has always cherished.
>
> The tragedy is that these changes have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do
> with increasing our safety and everything to do with an illusion that is
> being increasingly manipulated by the government for purposes of achieving
> the power to change the society in ways that would be considered radical if
> the party currently in power were not labeled conservative.
>
> Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting people
> to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are obnoxious but they make the trains run
> on time and I've got a job now."
>
> The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view
> expressed in your post is a far, far greater threat to our nation than the
> terrorists will ever be.
>
> No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are free
> to give it up.
>

Well said, Roger! Freedom is under attack, and not (mainly) by the
terrorists.

-Aviv

[Marco Leon]

The "price to pay" that I'm talking about is dealing with the "window
dressing" security measures. That price includes fighting these security
measures being put on us as a society and on general aviation in particular.
We should fight it tooth and nail. The real battle for our security (read:
prevention of another terrorist attack) however is being fought in places we
will never know about.

Marco

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small
> > price
> > to pay to enjoy the freedom we have.
>
> It's is NOT, NOT, NOT, a relatively small price. You've got it all
EXACTLY
> backwards.
>
snip

[Blueskies]

Excellent, Roger, thanks for the post!

"Roger Long" > wrote in message ...
> "Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in message ...
>
>> Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small price
>> to pay to enjoy the freedom we have.
>
> It's is NOT, NOT, NOT, a relatively small price. You've got it all EXACTLY backwards.
>
> The terrorists could never take our freedom. Only we (or our government if completely ceases to become "we") can do
> that. The terrorists are not powerful enough. They can knock down buildings, shut down city transit systems, kill
> millions, and we will still be free if the country has the guts to keep ourselves free.
>
> You are not talking about freedom but only the illusion of infinitesimally greater safety from violent acts that,
> while they have a huge impact on the national psyche, are almost vanishingly unlikely to happen to any individual.
> This illusion is created not by actually making us feel safer but by creating a pervasive atmosphere of fear such that
> having freedoms taken away brings us back to where we were before. When something is taken away and then given back,
> you haven't gained anything.
>
> The price for this illusion is innumerable changes in small things that used to enrich our lives like parents stopping
> along the airport runway to watch the planes with their children. Each may be inconsequential but in sum they make up
> the essence of the freedom that this nation has always cherished.
>
> The tragedy is that these changes have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do with increasing our safety and everything to
> do with an illusion that is being increasingly manipulated by the government for purposes of achieving the power to
> change the society in ways that would be considered radical if the party currently in power were not labeled
> conservative.
>
> Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting people to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are
> obnoxious but they make the trains run on time and I've got a job now."
>
> The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view expressed in your post is a far, far greater
> threat to our nation than the terrorists will ever be.
>
> No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are free to give it up.
>
> --
>
> Roger Long
>
>
>
>

[Morgans]

"Roger Long" > wrote

>
> The tragedy is that these changes have nothing, absolutely NOTHING, to do
> with increasing our safety and everything to do with an illusion that is
> being increasingly manipulated by the government for purposes of achieving
> the power to change the society in ways that would be considered radical
if
> the party currently in power were not labeled conservative.
>
> Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting people
> to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are obnoxious but they make the trains
run
> on time and I've got a job now."
>
> The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view
> expressed in your post is a far, far greater threat to our nation than the
> terrorists will ever be.
>
> No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are
free
> to give it up.
>
> --
>
> Roger Long

O.K. Roger. What have *you* done to help us keep our freedoms? Have you
gotten to those that are stacking on the restrictions, and made them stop?
Just voting for what you think are the right people counts for nothing.
What else?

Although what you say may be true I, for one, am sick of hearing people (and
you) spout off about it.

Flame away, but come here with something that will make a difference, and I
will start listening again.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004

[Judah]

I have several problems with this theory, and the current implementation of
it.

Most importantly, with respect to the current implementation, the public is
quickly "catching on". Between news media reports of security "holes", and
public realizations like your own, the public is starting to realize that
the "National Security" is mostly for show.

If that's the case, doesn't it by definition mean that the War On Terror is
a losing battle? The government and the media will keep "chasing" each
other until everyone wakes up and realizes what's going on. Then the public
will become so cynical that they don't trust the government to keep them
secure even when real security tactics are implemented. It's a really bad
direction to go, and in the long run will lead to a much worse situation.

I'm not certain what a better strategy would be. But which is better -
being disappointed in a government that recognizes the futility of hiring
cops to watch GA airports? Or feeling betrayed by your own government that
tried to pull the wool over your eyes by dumping money into "feel-good"
security tactics that don't actually make you any safer.

Of course, if it were just hiring cops to watch GA airports, it wouldn't be
so bad. But it seems to me that the current administration believes that
it's better to put anything in the "win" column if it makes people "feel
safer", even if it's completely unjustifiable - both financially and
militarily...

Let them go to Broadway if they want to put on a show...

"Roger Long" > wrote in
:

> I watched the webcast of the TSA chief's meeting with AOPA. I found
> myself going back and forth over his responses to the questions. Why
> you have to prove your citizenship to get a glider rating but not to
> rent a 14 ton truck? Why can't foreign pilots who fly 747's into and
> over Alaska do seaplane training during their layovers?
>
> I'm a writer so have above average understanding of the language that
> divides us but I couldn't figure out what his responses had to do with
> the questions or even what he was getting at.
>
> I got the general drift of some sort of theory of overall security.
> Today I had an experience that suddenly made it crystal clear. He
> really was making perfect sense. I just wasn't getting it.
>
> Here is how the comprehensive security he was talking about works:
>
> I was buzzed out onto the ramp and checked to make sure my badge was
> visible. Oops! It was still tucked inside my jacket and out of sight.
> Then, I got into my lethal 172 and flew around above unwitting citizens
> heads for an hour.
>
> I landed and turned the plane over to a new member going for his
> checkout and decided to stop along the runway to watch him do touch and
> gos. There's a nice parking area that the pre 911 design included for
> the benefit of people who like to watch planes.
>
> Within 30 seconds, there was a cop behind me asking what I was doing
> there. I showed him my ramp pass and told him that was my plane up
> there and I was watching a new co-owner fly it. "Well, you can watch
> from the terminal.", he snarled. As I pulled away, he moved back into
> his cooping spot and I realize he was irritated because I had
> interrupted his plane watching with my threat to public safety.
>
> I drove down to the terminal and turned right onto the old access road
> that now deadends along the runway. There are some storage containers
> along the fence and a number of people were parked and sitting on their
> hoods watching planes.
>
> I went over behind the container and watched my plane fly. I was out of
> sight of anyone except pilots on the runway, screened by bushes and the
> container. If you were going to take a pot shot at a plane with a rifle
> or a stinger, this would be the place. Did I see any cops? Hell no.
> There weren't even any tire tracks from vehicles turning around to
> check this area. The plane watchers up the road, who could easily be
> seen from the tower were clearly settled in for a long session of
> basking in the sun and watching planes.
>
> Why is plane watching "dangerous" at the most public and intended place
> and not at the one where you could set up a mortar, a fox hole, and a
> Stinger battery and probably be there for hours before anyone caught
> on? If a policeman is needed full time to chase away plane watchers so
> they don't provide coverage for terrorists, which spot should receive
> priority?
>
> Somewhere in Stone's rambling, I think I got the message. The priority
> spot is out by the main road where everyone has to pass by because this
> will provide the maximum public reassurance. There aren't the resources
> to have cops everywhere. Having one out of sight in the bushes at the
> end of the road doesn't meet the true objectives of comprehensive
> security.
>
>

[Judah]

"Marco Leon" <mmleon(at)yahoo.com> wrote in :

> Anyone who knows anything about national security knows that a
> terrorist will not be likely caught at the scene minutes before the
> act.
>
> Is this all "window dressing?" Sure it is. But it's a relatively small
> price to pay to enjoy the freedom we have. Let's just hope the real
***************^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^******* *********************

That depends...

Part of the price we're paying is, for example, the Patriot Act, which
affords police the right to arrest you and hold you indefinitely without
charging you, without an appeals process, and without the checks and
balances that this nation was founded on. Basically, it's Martial Law
without any restrictions, and it is up to the individual "soldiers" to
implement it fairly. How such a thing could be considered a tactic of a
Champion of Freedom is beyond me.

> keepers of our security that are behind the scenes are doing their job.

This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
Dollars in Iraq, we should have spent that money on building, staffing, and
promoting a communications system (tip line, maybe?) that allows our
intelligence officials to properly handle, investigate, and take seriously,
for example, calls from Flight Instructors who claimed their flight
students were behaving suspiciously because they only wanted to learn to
fly a 747, but didn't want to learn to take off or land, then maybe I'd buy
into that plan!

I'm not sure what the right tactic is, but I don't think breaching the
trust of the people is a good one... Especially when you have government
officials scaring the public with talk about "terrorist chatter" in the
same breath as they are trying to make the public "feel safer"...

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:11:13 GMT, Judah wrote:

>This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
>Dollars in Iraq,

50 billion? -> http://www.costofwar.com/

#m

--
Buck Fush!

[Judah]

Sorry - I must have been using last week's numbers...


Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:11:13 GMT, Judah wrote:
>
>>This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
>>Dollars in Iraq,
>
> 50 billion? -> http://www.costofwar.com/
>
> #m
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Judah wrote:
>
> This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
> Dollars in Iraq, ....

The last figure I heard had a "4" in front of that "50". NPR two days ago.

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

[john smith]

You guys haven't caught on yet, have you?
It has nothing to do with security and everything to do with federal
money for contracts and empire building within federal agencies.
It's a jobs program.
Look at the $1 million that was spent on the party TSA had last month.
If a security save happens... well, we got lucky.

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:28:12 GMT, G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>The last figure I heard had a "4" in front of that "50". NPR two days ago.

*hehe* ... your election is coming up. Here (Austria, Germany) the TV
coverage of the US election starts off with Fahrenheit 9/11 on Nov 1st as
an intro. We have some stations with coverage all night long [1] (due to
the time shift). Maybe they will find the 30,000 (?) voting cards in
Florida or maybe Bush's website will be accessible outside the US [2] by
then. Hm, maybe Kerry will bring home many/all US troops from Iraq ... but
this will then cause another vacuum.


#m

[1] at least 1 TV station has some special reports during this week with
very good insight views on the US.
[2]
<http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/10/26/bush_campaign_web_site_rejects_nonus_visitors.html>

--
Buck Fush!

[BSorrell]

Martin Hotze > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:11:13 GMT, Judah wrote:
>
>>This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
>>Dollars in Iraq,
>
> 50 billion? -> http://www.costofwar.com/
>
> #m
>

I went to this website, and while I am concerned over the cost of the
war,
why is it that when someone points out it's cost, they point to ways
they want to spend it.

Why is a person who want to keep his own money and decide how to spend
it is called greedy and the person who wants to take it away at gunpoint
and give it to someone else, generally to buy votes, is not?

Why is taking away my money to buy the votes of people who didn't earn
it not included when we talk about liberties lost?

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 18:28:12 GMT, G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> >The last figure I heard had a "4" in front of that "50". NPR two days
> >ago.
>
> *hehe* ... your election is coming up. Here (Austria, Germany) the TV
> coverage of the US election starts off with Fahrenheit 9/11 on Nov 1st as
> an intro.

It's good to see you have such well researched facts available.

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

[Judah]

I don't think we'll ever REALLY know how much the war is costing us.

But quite frankly, I think the financial burden is not the highest price we
are paying for the war...

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in
:

>
>
> Judah wrote:
>>
>> This would have been a better bet. If instead of spending 50 Billion
>> Dollars in Iraq, ....
>
> The last figure I heard had a "4" in front of that "50". NPR two days
> ago.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have been looking for it.

[[email protected]]

Yep, I agree. My first real job was working as a repair technician for a
cash register dealer. Sometimes, the things couldn't be fixed in the field
and had to be brought back to the shop. I would just stroll out the door
with a big cash register and no one would ask me about it. I once had a
guard hold the door open for me.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:Kgigd.324001$MQ5.208577@attbi_s52...
> > Go figure, nobody stopped by to ask me precisely what I thought I was
> > doing.
>
> I used to marvel at this all the time.
>
> In my last business, we had over 60 newspaper vending machines in one
> county. If one didn't sell well, I'd have one of my guys move it to
> another location.
>
> Occasionally, I'd move one myself. I'd simply pull up in my unmarked
pickup
> truck, back up to the machine that was in front of a restaurant or store,
> and -- without further ado -- I'd lift the entire machine into the back of
> the truck.
>
> I did this for years. Never -- not even once -- did ANYONE question me,
or
> what I was doing.
>
> In my experience, if you act like you know what you're doing, you can get
> away with almost anything.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Why is taking away my money to buy the votes of people who didn't earn
> it not included when we talk about liberties lost?

Because that's not part of the program.

Most folks who are whining about lost liberty NEVER care if it happens to be
*your* financial liberty.

Never.

Hell, they don't even see the connection.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Martin Hotze]

On Sat, 30 Oct 2004 23:26:19 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:

>> *hehe* ... your election is coming up. Here (Austria, Germany) the TV
>> coverage of the US election starts off with Fahrenheit 9/11 on Nov 1st as
>> an intro.
>
>It's good to see you have such well researched facts available.


I'd gladly check those facts with the ones that your current leader brings
up, but unfortunately his website is not accessible outside of the USA.

Hopefully this guy is history in a couple of days. Sad thing is that we got
used to make jokes about W and his brave fellows and we have then to jump
on Kerry. :-)

#m

--
Buck Fush!

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> I'd gladly check those facts with the ones that your current leader
> brings
> up, but unfortunately his website is not accessible outside of the USA.

I'm sure you can figure out other places to check facts. Hopefully
you'll do your research with a more critical and thorough approach
than the likes of Moore.

> Hopefully this guy is history in a couple of days. Sad thing is that we
> got
> used to make jokes about W and his brave fellows and we have then to jump
> on Kerry. :-)

I pray that it won't be needed, but you can start with "liveshot",
"flip-flop", and "waffle."

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

[Martin Hotze]

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 09:54:56 GMT, Bob Noel wrote:

>> I'd gladly check those facts with the ones that your current leader
>> brings
>> up, but unfortunately his website is not accessible outside of the USA.
>
>I'm sure you can figure out other places to check facts. Hopefully

yep.

>you'll do your research with a more critical and thorough approach
>than the likes of Moore.

I could if I want to, but to tell you the trouth: I have no interest.

>> Hopefully this guy is history in a couple of days. Sad thing is that we
>> got
>> used to make jokes about W and his brave fellows and we have then to jump
>> on Kerry. :-)
>
>I pray that it won't be needed, but you can start with "liveshot",
>"flip-flop", and "waffle."

Well, I will give this guy and his administration the 100 days in office,
then I'll see if there are some changes coming up in your country. Then
I'll check if it is save and useful for a foreigner to visit your country
again (and share the airspace). Right now it isn't.

#m

--
Buck Fush!

[Dan Luke]

"Marco Leon" wrote:
> True, but you can't entirely attribute the fact that there has not
> been a
> single successful al-Qaeda terrorist attack on US soil on pure
> coincidence.

I suppose you mean "...since 9/11."

No it's not coincidence, but neither is it necessarily due to the
anti-terrorism efforts of the U. S. government, which are mostly futile,
politically motivated busy work. Remember that there have historically
been long stretches between Islamic terrorist operations in the U. S.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Roger Long" wrote:
> Hitler, Sadam, and his ilk got their first grip on power by getting
people
> to say, "Sure, the storm troopers are obnoxious but they make the
> trains run on time and I've got a job now."
>
> The increasing and widespread adoption of exactly the point of view
> expressed in your post is a far, far greater threat to our nation than
> the terrorists will ever be.
>
> No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are
> free to give it up.

Attaboy, Roger.
--
Dan

"There ought to be limits to freedom"

- George W. Bush

[Roger Long]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "There ought to be limits to freedom"
>
> - George W. Bush
And, next term, there will be. For crissaches pilots, wake up and vote for
ANYBODY but this guy! Even if Kerry is as bad, or worse, at least you'll be
breaking the momentum. Look beyond the piddling tax breaks he's giving you
with our grandchildren's money and think about what has cost you the most
freedom since 911, the attacks government reaction? Then ask yourself, have
any of these measures been sensible, effective, or worth the freedom lost?

--

Roger Long

[G.R. Patterson III]

Roger Long wrote:
>
> For crissaches pilots, wake up and vote for ANYBODY but this guy!

If you're voting to vote *against* a major party candidate, you will be wasting your
vote unless you vote for the opposing major party candidate. If you're one of those
rare people who actually have a candidate that you want to vote *for*, you are
wasting your vote if you don't vote for that candidate.

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

[Roger Long]

I've already voted for my guy. If somebody else can't vote for him, I'd
just as soon they voted for Nader or Kermit the Frog.

--

Roger Long



"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger Long wrote:
>>
>> For crissaches pilots, wake up and vote for ANYBODY but this guy!
>
> If you're voting to vote *against* a major party candidate, you will be
> wasting your
> vote unless you vote for the opposing major party candidate. If you're one
> of those
> rare people who actually have a candidate that you want to vote *for*, you
> are
> wasting your vote if you don't vote for that candidate.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have
> been looking for it.

[Judah]

Bob Noel > wrote in news:ihatessppaamm-
:

>
> I pray that it won't be needed, but you can start with "liveshot",
> "flip-flop", and "waffle."
>

Are you saying that you believe it's better to fly straight into the
mountain than to change direction when you see the ground coming at you,
just because you know you have to get to the other side?

Changing a plan in light of new information is not flip-flopping. It's
management.

Standing by your convictions when they are unfounded and/or based on
invalid data, on the other hand, is naive, and sometimes deadly.



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


I'm Judah and I approve this message.


(Paid for by lots of friendly usenet newsgroup hosts who have chosen to
carry my crazy rantings and ravings.)

[Jonathan Goodish]

In article >,
Judah > wrote:
> Changing a plan in light of new information is not flip-flopping. It's
> management.

In order to change an existing plan to a new plan, there has to be a new
plan. I have yet to see evidence of a new plan from the major party
candidate who is opposing the incumbent.

Changing your mind and admitting that you changed your mind is not
flip-flopping. Changing your mind and insisting that your new position
was really your position all along, when it can be easily documented
that it wasn't, is called lying. Flip-flopping is repeatedly changing
your position depending on the group to whom you are speaking.




JKG

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Judah
> wrote:

> > I pray that it won't be needed, but you can start with "liveshot",
> > "flip-flop", and "waffle."
>
> Are you saying that you believe it's better to fly straight into the
> mountain than to change direction when you see the ground coming at you,
> just because you know you have to get to the other side?

No.

>
> Changing a plan in light of new information is not flip-flopping.

True. But what does that have to do with the do-nothing senator
from my home state?

>It's management.

False.

> Standing by your convictions when they are unfounded and/or based on
> invalid data, on the other hand, is naive, and sometimes deadly.

Why are you bringing Kennedy into this discussion?

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

[Jim Rosinski]

Martin Hotze > wrote

> >I'm sure you can figure out other places to check facts. Hopefully
> >you'll do your research with a more critical and thorough approach
> >than the likes of [Michael] Moore.
>
> I could if I want to, but to tell you the trouth: I have no interest.

One would think that a desire to earn and/or maintain the respect of
those who read your posts would kindle an interest in projecting some
semblance of an objective viewpoint. In your case, evidently not.

Jim Rosinski

[Jim Rosinski]

john smith > wrote

> You guys haven't caught on yet, have you?
> It has nothing to do with security and everything to do with federal
> money for contracts and empire building within federal agencies.
> It's a jobs program.

Very sad, but unfortunately true. Others statements in this thread
about the perception of increased security being more important to
those in power than the reality of its minimal nature aren't wrong.
But I think your short post comes the closest to hitting the nail on
the head. There's always a "big dig" going on somewhere.

Jim Rosinski

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger Long" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are
> free to give it up.

Interesting timing for your post. I, of course, wholeheartedly agree with
everything you've said. All bin Laden and his folks did was to knock down a
couple of buildings. It's our own government, and our own citizens for that
matter, who have done the bulk of the damage. Just as you properly point
out.

And then, just today I read this article providing a more in-depth summary
of the new bin Laden video recording:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6387377/

In it, bin Laden basically says "it's easy to manipulate the US government
into destroying itself and its own country" and then describes the many ways
that he and his group has done so. Sadly, he is actually correct.

The only question now is, will our government and citizenship wake up and
smell the coffee? Or will they do the typical "human nature" thing and just
dig in harder, refusing the accept that there might actually be some truth
in what bin Laden says, when he discusses how easily the US citizens are
fooled into sacrificing their own rights and economic well-being?

I'm trying to be optimistic, but frankly...it's difficult.

Pete

[G.R. Patterson III]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "Roger Long" > wrote in message
> ...
> > [...]
> > No one can take freedom from a country as great as this one but we are
> > free to give it up.
>
> Interesting timing for your post. I, of course, wholeheartedly agree with
> everything you've said.

I also have to agree.

> I'm trying to be optimistic, but frankly...it's difficult.

I'm finding it impossible.

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

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
> The only question now is, will our government and citizenship wake up and
> smell the coffee? Or will they do the typical "human nature" thing and
just
> dig in harder, refusing the accept that there might actually be some truth
> in what bin Laden says, when he discusses how easily the US citizens are
> fooled into sacrificing their own rights and economic well-being?
>
> I'm trying to be optimistic, but frankly...it's difficult.

Polls showing that most Americans have confidence in Bush and his policies
in the "War On Terrorism" give me a dismal outlook, as well.

Sadly, Kerry seems to have no ideas that differ in any substantial way from
the Bush administration's, although one hopes he may have better sense than
to hand al Qaeda a massive propaganda victory like the war in Iraq.
--
Dan

"Shut up! Shut up!"
- Bill O'Reilly

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> Sadly, Kerry seems to have no ideas that differ in any substantial way
> from
> the Bush administration's

Agreed...you'll note in my post that I place plenty of blame with US
citizens. Bush presided over the recent events, and indeed his
administration is mostly responsible for the egregious errors and
misinformation that resulted in our situation in Iraq. But in terms of the
overall future of this country, domestic policy issues such as the Patriot
Act and the Department of Homeland Security are at least as significant,
probably more so. And so far, those win high, bipartisan approval.

We're doing ourselves in, and it can't all be blamed on Bush. Nor is it
really all that obvious that Kerry would have handled things much
differently (in spite of what he says now).

That said, our best hope for reconciliation with the rest of the world, to
help us get ourselves out of the mess Bush got us into is to not reelect
him. I obviously can't say whether this blog represents the majority
opinion amongst our potential allies --
http://barlow.typepad.com/barlowfriendz/2004/10/supporting_kerr.html -- but
I'd say there's an extremely high chance that it does. It certainly does a
fair job of reflecting my own views. My favorite quote (from a German
citizen): "We can forgive you for electing him once. As we ought to know,
any electorate can make a tragic mistake. But if you elect him twice, we
will start fearing you Americans as much as we currently fear your
government."

Anyway, we're just hours away from knowing how many more weeks or months it
will take before we know who's going to be our next President. :)

Pete

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
> That said, our best hope for reconciliation with the rest of the
> world, to help us get ourselves out of the mess Bush got us into is to
> not reelect him. I obviously can't say whether this blog represents
> the majority opinion amongst our potential allies --
> http://barlow.typepad.com/barlowfriendz/2004/10/supporting_kerr.html --
> but I'd say there's an extremely high chance that it does. It
> certainly does a fair job of reflecting my own views.

Yep; that's a very cogent summation of the reasons I voted for Kerry
today. But as Barlow says, it's disturbing that the Kerry crowd isn't
running away with this one. This should be a slam dunk - are they going
to be able to do anything right if they win?

> Anyway, we're just hours away from knowing how many more weeks or
> months it will take before we know who's going to be our next
> President. :)

Regiments of lawyers are mobilizing as we write...
--
Dan

"Shut up! Shut up!"
- Bill O'Reilly

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> Yep; that's a very cogent summation of the reasons I voted for Kerry
> today. But as Barlow says, it's disturbing that the Kerry crowd isn't
> running away with this one. This should be a slam dunk - are they going
> to be able to do anything right if they win?

Disturbing, yes. I'm not sure it's as much the fault of Kerry's campaign
(though of course partly) as it is for the human tendency to simply ignore
new facts when they are presented, especially when accepting those new facts
would involve admitting an error in judgment. A recent Gallup poll revealed
a disturbing level of ignorance in the American electorate, and especially
among Republicans (i.e. Bush supporters).

Just within the last month, Gallup reported that 42% surveyed *still*
believe that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, with that figure only
dropping by 10 points to 32% for the question of whether Hussein had
*personally* planned the attacks. Restricting the "involved" question to
just Republicans, the number climbs to 62%!

The same poll showed a number of other false beliefs, with similar
demographics (i.e. Bush supporters being much more likely to have ignored
factual reports contradicting Bush's false claims, choosing instead to
believe statements already proved to be false).

In the face of that sort of willful ignorance, it's no surprise that so many
people are bound and determined to stick with their horse, no matter how
obviously it's ready for the glue plant. Kerry's campaign as well as the
media can point over and over to all sorts of errors and outright lies by
the Bush administration, but the people who need to hear and believe it the
most are the least likely to bother to listen, never mind take the
information seriously.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> That said, our best hope for reconciliation with the rest of the world,

Is it really important what the rest of the world thinks?

Are we not a sovereign nation?

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

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> Is it really important what the rest of the world thinks?

It's only important if we want to get along with the rest of the world, and
to enjoy the assistance of the rest of the world. Whether those are things
you find important, I can't say. Somehow, I doubt you do.

But many of us do, and I personally find the "we'll just go it on our own"
attitude repugnantly ignorant.

> Are we not a sovereign nation?

Of course we are. So what? We aren't a sovereign nation in a vacuum.

Pete

[Dan Luke]

"Peter Duniho" wrote:
>> Yep; that's a very cogent summation of the reasons I voted for Kerry
>> today. But as Barlow says, it's disturbing that the Kerry crowd
>> isn't running away with this one. This should be a slam dunk - are
>> they going to be able to do anything right if they win?
>
> Disturbing, yes. I'm not sure it's as much the fault of Kerry's
> campaign (though of course partly) as it is for the human tendency to
> simply ignore new facts when they are presented, especially when
> accepting those new facts would involve admitting an error in
> judgment. A recent Gallup poll revealed a disturbing level of
> ignorance in the American electorate, and especially among Republicans
> (i.e. Bush supporters).
>
> Just within the last month, Gallup reported that 42% surveyed *still*
> believe that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks, with that
> figure only dropping by 10 points to 32% for the question of whether
> Hussein had *personally* planned the attacks. Restricting the
> "involved" question to just Republicans, the number climbs to 62%!
>
> The same poll showed a number of other false beliefs, with similar
> demographics (i.e. Bush supporters being much more likely to have
> ignored factual reports contradicting Bush's false claims, choosing
> instead to believe statements already proved to be false).
>
> In the face of that sort of willful ignorance, it's no surprise that
> so many people are bound and determined to stick with their horse, no
> matter how obviously it's ready for the glue plant. Kerry's campaign
> as well as the media can point over and over to all sorts of errors
> and outright lies by the Bush administration, but the people who need
> to hear and believe it the most are the least likely to bother to
> listen, never mind take the information seriously.

I know you're just trying to cheer me up, Pete, thanks. :)

Perhaps nothing ever changes: most people want to be led, not educated.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Peter Duniho]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> I know you're just trying to cheer me up, Pete, thanks. :)

Sorry about that. On the bright side, and at least a little related to my
posts, I found out yesterday that a friend of mine, in his late 30's, did
not actually know the correct pronounciation of the name "Eeyore" (he
pronounced it "I-ore"). I thought that was kind of funny. :)

> Perhaps nothing ever changes: most people want to be led, not educated.

True...I don't think this is anything really new. Reminds me of an exchange
between my grandfather and me nearly two decades ago in which he was
impressed by my cartoon stationery that had a bunch of sheep all heading
over a cliff, except for a lone one in the middle of the rush, heading the
other way crying out "I've got to be me!" Never mind that the stationery
was actually a Far Side cartoon of lemmings, not sheep...his point about
most people being like sheep was still very much true.

For what it's worth, in spite of my apparent cynicism, my belief that this
*isn't* anything new actually gives me a somewhat optimistic view on the
whole thing. That is, on the whole as humanity we've been making progress
toward a better world, not a worse one. That's in spite of these inherent
flaws in human nature.

These flaws have always been with us, ever since there have been humans, and
somehow we manage to work past them. It often takes a long time, but it
does eventually happen. Here too, I believe that even if willful ignorance
carries the day, in the long run we will eventually turn back around and
start heading the right direction again. Today's election is completely
inconsequential in that respect.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> > Is it really important what the rest of the world thinks?
>
> It's only important if we want to get along with the rest of the world,
> and
> to enjoy the assistance of the rest of the world.

that cuts both ways.

>Whether those are
> things
> you find important, I can't say. Somehow, I doubt you do.

The important of world opinion is not high enough that it
should dictate to us who should be our president.

>
> But many of us do, and I personally find the "we'll just go it on our
> own"
> attitude repugnantly ignorant.

Then you and the "many" need to learn the definition of ignorant.
(perhaps you were searching for the word arrogant)

>
> > Are we not a sovereign nation?
>
> Of course we are. So what? We aren't a sovereign nation in a vacuum.

but as a sovereign nation, we decide our president, not folks in
Canada, not folks in the UK, not folks in France, not folks anywhere
else.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
> > > Is it really important what the rest of the world thinks?
> >
> > It's only important if we want to get along with the rest of the world,
> > and
> > to enjoy the assistance of the rest of the world.
>
> that cuts both ways.
>

Quite!! It's like the girl who wants to be popular, so she sleeps around
with anyone with testicles....

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> The important of world opinion is not high enough that it
> should dictate to us who should be our president.

I never said it did.

> Then you and the "many" need to learn the definition of ignorant.
> (perhaps you were searching for the word arrogant)

No, "ignorant" is the word I meant to use. On the whole, the very same
people who raked Clinton over the coals for lying about an affair have
turned a completely blind eye to the lies Bush used to justify his unfounded
attack on Iraq.

That alone is a sufficient demonstration of ignorance for me (and polls
prove that people remain ignorant of the actual facts), but as well the
thought that the USA can manage its own defense and at the same time invade
occupy other sovereign nations, all without the help of the rest of the
world (help that is withheld, by the way, as a direct consequence of Bush's
decision-making) is further proof of ignorance.

> but as a sovereign nation, we decide our president, not folks in
> Canada, not folks in the UK, not folks in France, not folks anywhere
> else.

Yes, we do. So what?

Pete

[Frank]

Dan Luke wrote:

>
> "Peter Duniho" wrote:
>> The only question now is, will our government and citizenship wake up and
>> smell the coffee? Or will they do the typical "human nature" thing and
> just
>> dig in harder, refusing the accept that there might actually be some
>> truth in what bin Laden says, when he discusses how easily the US
>> citizens are fooled into sacrificing their own rights and economic
>> well-being?
>>
>> I'm trying to be optimistic, but frankly...it's difficult.
>
> Polls showing that most Americans have confidence in Bush and his policies
> in the "War On Terrorism" give me a dismal outlook, as well.
>
> Sadly, Kerry seems to have no ideas that differ in any substantial way
> from the Bush administration's, although one hopes he may have better
> sense than to hand al Qaeda a massive propaganda victory like the war in
> Iraq.

We, as Americans, first need to recognize that terrorism is NOT the most
important problems we face. That's not to say it isn't an important problem
of course. But issues like hunger, poverty, ignorance, and injustice claim
many more victims.

Most of what we've been discussing here stems from becoming so preoccupied
with security that we forget what else is important.

I have never liked the phrase "War on terror". Terrorism is a problem to be
solved, not a war that can be won. But if that's the metaphor to be used
then I submit the following:

War demands sacrifice. The sacrifice for us in this war will be that one
doesn't get to feel secure all the time. I suggest that it is our patriotic
duty to go about our business even though we may be a bit apprehensive.
Recognize the fact that all the metal detectors in the world aren't going
to make you safe so suck it up and go to the mall anyway.
--
Frank....H

[Blueskies]

"Frank" > wrote in message ...
> Dan Luke wrote:
>
>>
<snip>
>
> I have never liked the phrase "War on terror". Terrorism is a problem to be
> solved, not a war that can be won. But if that's the metaphor to be used
> then I submit the following:
>
> War demands sacrifice. The sacrifice for us in this war will be that one
> doesn't get to feel secure all the time. I suggest that it is our patriotic
> duty to go about our business even though we may be a bit apprehensive.
> Recognize the fact that all the metal detectors in the world aren't going
> to make you safe so suck it up and go to the mall anyway.
> --
> Frank....H

Well said, I like that, thanks!