Guess Who's Planning to Shine Lasers on Pilots

[Larry Dighera]

Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:


-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------

AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
"USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
will be among those briefed and the association already is working
with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
demonstration.


*
http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-railroad/20050112/DCW04712012005-1.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

Ward Churchill?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:29:16 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>Ward Churchill?

This Ward Churchill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill

Why would he do that?

He'd throw a book at 'em: http://www.dickshovel.com/amaChur.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> This Ward Churchill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill
>

Yup.


>
> Why would he do that?
>

Who knows why wackos do what wackos do?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:19:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> This Ward Churchill? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ward_Churchill
>>
>
>Yup.
>
>>
>> Why would he do that?
>>
>
>Who knows why wackos do what wackos do?
>

Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
a little research:
http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739

Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
read at that link.


Why do you think he's wacky?

Can you quote any of his irrational statements?

[Michael 182]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...


> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?

The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent to
"little Eichmans" seems a little irrational. I live in Boulder, the
epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result is
that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
status.

I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in the
spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
amendment. I find it humorous that Owens, the Republican governor, who
theoretically supports a conservative interpretation of the constitution, is
calling for the resignation and/or termination of a tenured professor
because he exercised those rights.

Michael

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
> a little research:
> http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739
>
> Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
> perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
> read at that link.
>
>
> Why do you think he's wacky?
>

Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.


>
> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>

I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you can easily
examine the site yourself.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent
> to "little Eichmans" seems a little irrational. I live in Boulder, the
> epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
> the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
> inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result
> is that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
> status.
>

Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 10:53:48 -0700, "Michael 182"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>
>The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent to
>"little Eichmans" seems a little irrational.

The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.

Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
ideology.

Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
legitimately targeted by the Allies.

>I live in Boulder, the
>epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
>the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
>inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result is
>that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
>status.

I'm not familiar with Churchill's work, but if the statement you
quoted is the worst of his "offences," I agree; it is a little
frightening, nearly as much the loss of constitutional rights under
the Patriot Act.

Perhaps what provokes Colorado Gov. Bill Owens to suggest Churchill's
resignation, is his frustration in adequately refuting Churchill's
logic (if he is even capable of understanding it).

Fortunately, Colorado University Chancellor Phil DiStefano is
conducting a 30-day examination of Professor Churchill's writings
ostensibly to afford Churchill his Constitutional rights before he
dismiss him. :-)

>I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in the
>spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
>amendment.

That was my understanding also. However, does the use of
seditiousness exceed Churchill's bounds as a faculty member, or does
he have a First Amendment right to say whatever he believes?

>I find it humorous that Owens, the Republican governor, who
>theoretically supports a conservative interpretation of the constitution, is
>calling for the resignation and/or termination of a tenured professor
>because he exercised those rights.
>
>Michael

That is ironic indeed, but Owens is a politician, and thus sensitive
to his public image (if he intends to seek reelection). If he fails
to pander to public hysteria, he'll be seen as complicit in
Churchill's ideology. So hypocrisy reigns. Welcome to the 21st
century. :-(

Who was it, that said:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it."



All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me to do
>> a little research:
>> http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739
>>
>> Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment, dissenting,
>> perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational enough from what I
>> read at that link.
>>
>>
>> Why do you think he's wacky?
>>
>
>Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.
>

Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:

Main Entry:wacky
Pronunciation:*wa-k*
Function:adjective
Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
Etymology:perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
Date:circa 1935

: absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
–wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
–wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun

I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?


>>
>> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>>
>
>I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you can easily
>examine the site yourself.
>

But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
>
> Main Entry:wacky
> Pronunciation:*wa-k*
> Function:adjective
> Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
> Etymology:perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
> Date:circa 1935
>
> : absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
> -wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
> -wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun
>
> I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
> aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?
>

Wrong.


>
> But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
> those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.
>

Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
irrational.

[mike regish]

Talk about the pot and the kettle...

mike regish

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>
>
> Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
> irrational.
>
>
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:10:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
>>
>> Main Entry:wacky
>> Pronunciation:*wa-k*
>> Function:adjective
>> Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
>> Etymology:perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
>> Date:circa 1935
>>
>> : absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
>> -wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
>> -wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun
>>
>> I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly eccentric"
>> aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational. Right?
>>
>
>Wrong.
>
>
>>
>> But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational, not
>> those Churchill's statements that you feel are irrational.
>>
>
>Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
>irrational.

Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"mike regish" > wrote in message
...
>
> Talk about the pot and the kettle...
>

We can if you wish.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 15:19:15 -0500, "mike regish"
> wrote in >::

>Talk about the pot and the kettle...
>
>"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to be
>> irrational.
>>

I haven't found Mr. McNicoll to be irrational in the years I've been
reading his articles posted to this newsgroup. I'd characterize him
as often pedantic, but usually quite lucid and logical.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?
>

I didn't.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
> > Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>
> The comment that the "technocrats" at the WTC on 9/11 were the equivalent
to
> "little Eichmans" seems a little irrational. I live in Boulder, the
> epicenter of the Churchill controversy. It's been very interesting reading
> the papers here. Regardless of his positions, which, as you stated are
> inflammatory and clearly designed to spark debate, the frightening result
is
> that the University, at the governor's request, is reviewing his tenure
> status.
>
> I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
the
> spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
> amendment.

No more so than yelling "Fire" in a crded theatre.

> I find it humorous that Owens, the Republican governor, who
> theoretically supports a conservative interpretation of the constitution,
is
> calling for the resignation and/or termination of a tenured professor
> because he exercised those rights.

His right to free speech does not include the soapbox to speak from.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
> the spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
> amendment.

Academic freedom isn't the issue here. Churchill's statements that sparked
this recent controversy were not made in the classroom, in the lecture hall,
or even on the campus.

[Michael 182]

The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
"in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
irrelevant.

Michael

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I thought the idea of a university was to spark debate and discussion in
>> the spirit of academic freedom and the ultimate extension of the first
>> amendment.
>
> Academic freedom isn't the issue here. Churchill's statements that
> sparked this recent controversy were not made in the classroom, in the
> lecture hall, or even on the campus.
>

[Michael 182]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...

> His right to free speech does not include the soapbox to speak from.

Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context of
a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
exactly that, a soapbox to speak from. Once again, I think his comments are
absurd, but the university community, including professors and students, are
rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide who
should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
semblance of creative thought.

Michael

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
> irrelevant.
>

I was just pointing out that this isn't an issue of academic freedom. This
isn't even an issue of free speech, as nobody is trying to silence
Churchill. The issue is whether anybody is required to provide him with a
soapbox.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
>
> Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context
> of a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
> exactly that, a soapbox to speak from.

Whether he actually earned tenure is also in question, as well as his
qualifications for his position.



Once again, I think his comments are
> absurd, but the university community, including professors and students,
> are rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide
> who should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
> semblance of creative thought.
>
> Michael
>

[Bob Fry]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?

Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

This idea, BTW, is my idea of tolerance, and I believe it to be the
single biggest factor as to why western culture zipped ahead of all
others the last 500 years. Inventors and persons who are generally
ahead of their time are often considered oddballs and wackos. As long
as they don't do violence to their fellow citizens and we tolerate
them, the occasional genius arises and, unbothered by society's mores,
they make incredible scientific or cultural advances which benefit us
all.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 16:23:46 -0700, "Michael 182"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
>> His right to free speech does not include the soapbox to speak from.
>
>Agreed, in terms of the constitution, but completely wrong in the context of
>a tenured university professor. In fact, his earning tenure gives him
>exactly that, a soapbox to speak from. Once again, I think his comments are
>absurd, but the university community, including professors and students, are
>rallying around him, with good cause. When we let politicians decide who
>should teach at universities based political beliefs we will lose all
>semblance of creative thought.


Perhaps Hubert Humphrey said it best:

"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
be taken seriously."

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 20:45:41 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Why would you want to shift the topic from Churchill to me?
>>
>
>I didn't.
>

If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.


First you posted:

From: "Steven P. McNicoll" >
Message-ID: t>

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Your comment was the first I'd heard of him, and it prompted me
> to do a little research:
> http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read.html?id=2739
>
> Outspoken, inflammatory, controversial, antiestablishment,
> dissenting, perhaps, but he seems sane, literate, and rational
> enough from what I read at that link.
>
>
> Why do you think he's wacky?
>

Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of
wacky.

>
> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?
>

I could copy and paste them from the site you linked to, but you
can easily examine the site yourself.


Clearly the topic is Churchill's "irrational" statements.


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

Then you posted:

From: "Steven P. McNicoll" >
Message-ID: et>

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Here's Merriam-Webster's definition:
>
> Main Entry:wacky
> Pronunciation:*wa-k*
> Function:adjective
> Inflected Form:wackier ; -est
> Etymology:perhaps from English dialect whacky fool
> Date:circa 1935
>
> : absurdly or amusingly eccentric or irrational : CRAZY
> -wackily \*wa-k*-l*\ adverb
> -wackiness \*wa-k*-n*s\ noun
>
> I take it, you intend to imply the "absurdly or amusingly
> eccentric" aspect of wacky as opposed to crazy or irrational.
> Right?
>

Wrong.


[>]
[> Can you quote any of his irrational statements?]
[>]
[]

[can easily examine the site yourself.]
[i]
>
> But then, I would only find those that I consider irrational,
> not those [of] Churchill's statements that you feel are
> irrational.
>

Yes, but over the years you've shown in these forums a tendency to
be irrational.
-------------------------------

Now the subject of your last sentence clearly refers to me not
Churchill, despite your contention to the contrary.

Is it because you are unwilling or unable to support your contention
that Churchill's statements are crazy or irrational, that you resort
to unsupportable and libelous invective?



Here's a little quote for you:

What ever became of logic and reason and, maybe most important,
courtesy? I’m talking about the ability to debate a topic using
facts and a constructive argument while avoiding the cutesy
nicknames, innuendoes and inevitably, the personal insult. Does
anyone but me recall the days when the word argument meant a
challenging conversational exercise on the merits of an issue.
-- Ed Rasimus

http://thundertales.blogspot.com/2005/02/death-of-discourse.htm

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.
>

As I see it the topic is guessing who's planning to shine lasers on pilots.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 03:34:26 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> If you agree that the topic was Churchill, you did.
>>
>
>As I see it the topic is guessing who's planning to shine lasers on pilots.
>

What I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser."

And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?

[Jay Honeck]

>> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>
> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis. Hell, there's a nut on
every street corner nowadays.

However, where his employer needs to become involved is when we find that
this opinion is being expressed by a guy who is actually being paid (by "We
the People") to *teach* this kind of crap to students. At some point you
have to question the mental abilities of a guy who would be ignorant enough
to draw such a comparison.

THAT is why his tenure is under review -- not because anyone wants to deny
him his rights.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 05:31:16 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <EgVRd.12049$zH6.3260@attbi_s53>::

>>> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>
>> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>> western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>> opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
>It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
>wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.

I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.

Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
ideology.

Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:

* Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
legitimately targeted by the Allies.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> >It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
> >wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.
>
> I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.

you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which actually
contradicts your claim.

>
> The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
> because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.
>
> Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
> majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
> ideology.

and since those "technocrats" were not unconsciously facist, the
comparison is absurd.

>
> Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:
>
> * Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
> as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
> working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
> Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
> but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
> enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
> legitimately targeted by the Allies.

Not much of a justification.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Doug Carter]

Bob Fry wrote:
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:
>
>
>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>
>
> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion.

More likely that he will be fired for various forms of fraud such as
claiming to be an Indian on his employment application.

From: http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096410347

"Reaction to Churchill in Indian country has been quite the opposite.
Two founders of AIM, Dennis Banks and Clyde Bellecourt - for decades,
bitter critics of Churchill - released a statement denouncing him and
his 9/11 essay in the name of the AIM Grand Governing Council. According
to the Feb. 3 statement, AIM ''is vehemently and emphatically
repudiating and condemning the outrageous statements made by academic
literary and Indian fraud Ward Churchill in relationship to the 9/11
tragedy in New York City that claimed thousands of innocent peoples'
lives.''

The statement read: ''Ward Churchill has been masquerading as an
Indian for years behind his dark glasses and beaded headband ... He has
deceitfully and treacherously fooled innocent and naive Indian community
members in Denver, Colorado as well as many other people worldwide.
Churchill does not represent, nor does he speak on behalf of, the
American Indian.''

The United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee in Oklahoma repudiated
Churchill's one claim to tribal affiliation, an honorary associate
membership issued by a former chief in 1993. Chief George G. Wickliffe
said the Band ''has no association with Churchill in any capacity
whatsoever and considers his comments offensive,'' adding that his essay
''does not in any way reflect the true compassion for the victims of the
World Trade Center and their families that is felt by the United
Keetoowah Band.''"

[Larry Dighera]

All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still be hysterically declared Enemy Combatants and lose
their right to legal due process as occurred in New Jersey?



On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0500, Bob Noel
> wrote in
>::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> >It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about some
>> >wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.
>>
>> I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.
>
>you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which actually
>contradicts your claim.

I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
his enabling, managerial aspect. I don't doubt that Churchill chose
Eichmann for his comparison in an attempt to inflame, but apparently
he could have used the names of the German industrialists
"legitimately" targeted by the Allies with the same implications, and
no one would have taken offence.

The offence taken by the American public probably stems from the
general lack of knowledge of Eichmann's role in WW-II (coupled with
the emotional hysteria generated by the felling of the WTC towers); at
the sound of his name all anyone recalls is the gut wrenching images
of emaciated corpses stacked high like firewood created by the Nazis,
and the public's lack of knowledge causes them to believe, that
Churchill is implying that the WTC "technocrats" were directly
responsible for the same Holocaust. Of course, such a comparison
would truly be absurd.

Without the context in which he made his statement, it is difficult to
discern his true intent, and the public's hysterical knee jerk
reaction is inevitable.

At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
by the current administration.

After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
the truth. Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
is ours.

Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
disparate opinions?

(Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
"Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")

If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
Bush" for what he said:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush

I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
century?

--

A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
has destroyed itself from within. ***
- Ariel Durant 1898-1981

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
> Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
> finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
> The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
> aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
> develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
> who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
> "USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
> followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
> for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
> will be among those briefed and the association already is working
> with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
> system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
> demonstration.
>
>
> *
> http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-railroad/20050112/DCW04712012005-1.html



A whole new meaning to the term "Light Gun" eh?

[Newps]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>
>
>
> Perhaps Hubert Humphrey said it best:
>
> "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
> be taken seriously."

Too bad there's no right to be heard.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:51:49 GMT, "Blueskies"
> wrote in
>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>> Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
>> Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
>> finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:
>>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>> AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
>> The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
>> aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
>> develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
>> who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
>> "USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
>> followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
>> for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
>> will be among those briefed and the association already is working
>> with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
>> system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
>> demonstration.
>>
>>
>> *
>> http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-railroad/20050112/DCW04712012005-1.html
>
>
>A whole new meaning to the term "Light Gun" eh?
>

Given Mineta's statements:

"Shining these lasers at an airplane is not a harmless prank. It
is stupid and dangerous," said Secretary of Transportation Norman
Y. Mineta. "You are putting other people at risk, and law
enforcement authorities are going to seek you out, and if they
catch you, they are going to prosecute you."

"We are treating lasers in the cockpit as a serious aviation
safety matter," the Secretary said. "We must act now before
someone's reckless actions lead to a terrible and tragic
incident."

It certainly seems contradictory at best.

I think the Air Force probably has a good idea for the use of lasers
in alerting pilots. I think the Secretary of Transportation's
statement stems more from a hysterical siege-mentality than rational
thought.

Has anyone got a link to more information about the technicalities of
what the USAF is planning?

[Newps]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>
>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
whatever they want.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 08:17:22 -0700, Newps > wrote
in >::

>
>
>Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>>
>>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
>That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
>whatever they want.

Apparently the public isn't paying very much:


http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E27772%257E2704862,00.html
State budget cuts to higher education have left a shell of a
public university system. CU gets only 7 percent of its budget
from state tax funds.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> I don't want to defend Churchill, but perhaps its so subtle, that you
> overlooked the distinction between the Nazi aspect of Eichmann and the
> his enabling, managerial aspect.

It's not subtle at all.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
>>>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>>
>>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

Careful how you cut and paste, Newps. I didn't say EITHER of those two
statements, above.

To the contrary, I'm arguing the same point you are, below.

> That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> whatever they want.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote

> I think the Air Force probably has a good idea for the use of lasers
> in alerting pilots. I think the Secretary of Transportation's
> statement stems more from a hysterical siege-mentality than rational
> thought.
>
I gotta agree. The point of safety , IMHO, comes more with the fast few
blinks of laser, vs extended blinding by Joe Q. public.
--
Jim in NC

[AES]

In article <8T5Sd.12982$zH6.12350@attbi_s53>,
"Jay Honeck" > wrote:

> > Jay Honeck wrote:
> >
> >>>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
> >>>
> >>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> >>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> >>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
> Careful how you cut and paste, Newps. I didn't say EITHER of those two
> statements, above.
>
> To the contrary, I'm arguing the same point you are, below.
>
> > That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> > whatever they want.

Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).

If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
"re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
statements made by you, only quoted by you.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
>
> Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
> to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
> that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
> posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).
>
> If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
> "re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
> least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
> statements made by you, only quoted by you.
>

Newps responded to Jay's message but deleted everything Jay wrote. Bad
form.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EgVRd.12049$zH6.3260@attbi_s53...
> >> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
> >
> > Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> > western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> > opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
> It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
some
> wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis. Hell, there's a nut on
> every street corner nowadays.
>
> However, where his employer needs to become involved is when we find that
> this opinion is being expressed by a guy who is actually being paid (by
"We
> the People") to *teach* this kind of crap to students. At some point you
> have to question the mental abilities of a guy who would be ignorant
enough
> to draw such a comparison.
>
> THAT is why his tenure is under review -- not because anyone wants to deny
> him his rights.

His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his neurotic
drivel.

Interestingly, the same ones screaming about his 1st Amendment rights are
the SAME ones that have been stomping on students and contrary faculty for
YEARS.

http://academicbias.com/bw101.html

[Matt Barrow]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
> > >It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
some
> > >wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.
> >
> > I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.
>
> you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which
actually
> contradicts your claim.
>
> >
> > The public knee jerk shock at hearing his statement is probably,
> > because most folks equate 'Eichmann' and 'Nazi'.
> >
> > Apparently Churchill didn't intend that statement to imply that the
> > majority of those WTC "technocrats" were consciously guilty of fascist
> > ideology.
>
> and since those "technocrats" were not unconsciously facist, the
> comparison is absurd.
>
> >
> > Here's how Churchill justifies his statement:
> >
> > * Finally, I have never characterized all the September 11 victims
> > as "Nazis." What I said was that the "technocrats of empire"
> > working in the World Trade Center were the equivalent of "little
> > Eichmanns." Adolf Eichmann was not charged with direct killing
> > but with ensuring the smooth running of the infrastructure that
> > enabled the Nazi genocide. Similarly, German industrialists were
> > legitimately targeted by the Allies.
>
> Not much of a justification.
>
He certainly has Orwellian double-speak down to an art.

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> >>>Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
> >>
> >>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> >>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> >>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
> That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> whatever they want.

Except in academia and as long as the unpopular speech is leftist, not
rightwing stuff.

[Matt Barrow]

"Michael 182" > wrote in message
...
> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were made
> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
> irrelevant.

Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for it.

[Matt Barrow]

"AES" > wrote in message
...
> In article <8T5Sd.12982$zH6.12350@attbi_s53>,
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
>
> > > That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> > > whatever they want.
>
> Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
> to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
> that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
> posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).
>
> If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
> "re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
> least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
> statements made by you, only quoted by you.

Evidently Ward Churchill isn't the only nutbar out there.

[Bob Fry]

Bob Fry wrote:
> >>>Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
> >>>western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> >>>opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.

Newps and Jay agree that:
> > That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> > whatever they want.

You guys say he's a "nutball." No doubt many others think he's got
something legit to say. Me, I don't care much what he says 'cause I'm
from California: far out, dude!

So you guys don't like him. Others do. Who decides whether his views
are useful or not? Time and history do. That's why tenure exists, to
protect the jobs of a relatively few unpopular folk. Even if you
lived in Colorado, your cost for his salary would be something like 22
cents/year or whatever. The whole "public has to pay" thing is a red
herring. The real issue is you don't like him and want to screw him.

Unless some academic prof does something *really* egregious, I'm on
the side of those defending him and his paid, tenured position. He's
doing what his job description says to do: think, and express the
result of that thinking. Tenure has a long history behind it; are you
so willing to chuck it over one guy? That's scary.

[Bob Fry]

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his neurotic
> drivel.

True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.

But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.

[AES]

In article et>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> "AES" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
> > to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
> > that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
> > posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).
> >
> > If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
> > "re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
> > least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
> > statements made by you, only quoted by you.
> >
>
> Newps responded to Jay's message but deleted everything Jay wrote. Bad
> form.

Wouldn't quarrel with that assessment. Possibly confusing, but not
necessarily illegal.

[AES]

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> "AES" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article <8T5Sd.12982$zH6.12350@attbi_s53>,
> > "Jay Honeck" > wrote:
> >
> > > > That's true but the public doesn't have to pay for nutballs to say
> > > > whatever they want.
> >
> > Jay, assuming that Newps didn't mess with the >'s in the post he replied
> > to, the above lines don't say that you "said" those things -- merely
> > that those lines were contained in (or were a part of) a post that you
> > posted (i.e., as quotes from earlier posts).
> >
> > If this is true, then, at least in some sense, you "posted" (or at least
> > "re-posted") these lines -- but the levels of > marks make clear, at
> > least to readers knowledgeable in newsgroup syntanx, that they weren't
> > statements made by you, only quoted by you.
>
> Evidently Ward Churchill isn't the only nutbar out there.

Gee, I thought you pilot types were focusing on knowing, understanding,
and following the rules -- even when they got a little complex.

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Barrow" >
>
> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
>> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
>> made
>> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
>> irrelevant.
>
> Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
> it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
> it.

Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
people is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, in a politically charged
atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure. A
quick look back at history shows where this leads. If the guy's nuts, he'll
eventually be ignored by everyone except other nuts. This sort of thing
happens in the physical sciences as well.

moo

[Newps]

Bob Fry wrote:
> "Matt Barrow" > writes:
>
>
>>His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his neurotic
>>drivel.
>
>
> True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
> having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.
>
> But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.

Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.

[Peter Duniho]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
> enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
> totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
> hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
> century?

I've avoided this thread, as I try to avoid all threads so far off topic.
However, I've been impressed with your tenacity, and am compelled to at
least contribute a heart-felt "Well said!" to this post, as well as all your
other responses.

I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
getting what you're saying, but I agree 100% with all you've written
regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.

Pete

[Icebound]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 06:31:54 -0500, Bob Noel
> > wrote in
> >::
>
>>In article >,
>> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>
>>> >It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
>>> >some
>>> >wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis.
>>>
>>> I don't think Churchill did compare the victims to Nazis.
>>
>>you keep saying that, and then post Churchill's "justification" which
>>actually
>>contradicts your claim.
>
> I don't want to defend Churchill, ...snip...
>
....snip...
> Without the context in which he made his statement, it is difficult to
> discern his true intent, and the public's hysterical knee jerk
> reaction is inevitable.
>
> At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
> pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
> dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
> a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
> granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
> would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
> by the current administration.
>
> After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
> exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
> the truth. Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
> report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
> is ours.
>
> Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
> Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
> disparate opinions?
>
> (Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
> "Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
> their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")
>
> If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
> perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
> Bush" for what he said:
>
> "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
> They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
> and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush
>
> I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
> enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
> totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
> hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
> century?
>

When we don't want our children to notice their conscience, we have two
options: suppress, or distract.
In this analogous case, Suppress: fire the *******... or distract:
stridently highlight only his most extreme inflammatory writings, his
personal hypocrises and flaws, and skip over any of the reasonable parts of
the argument.

We also don't want to trust our children to analyse opposing or ulta-radical
views. That might teach them independant thought. They might actually do
their own research to get closer to truth... so if we can't control our
educational institutions politically, we might want to withdraw their public
money and throw them to the mercy of handouts from somebody who can.

> --
>
> A great civilization is not conquered from without until it
> has destroyed itself from within. ***
> - Ariel Durant 1898-1981
>

Love your signature... been a few months since I've seen it in these groups
:-)

[Jay Honeck]

> I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
> getting what you're saying, but I agree 100% with all you've written
> regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.

While I agree with academic tenure, and I fully support every professor's
right to say whatever he wants, to whomever he wants, in the context of
"education", without fear of retribution -- I think there is a legitimate
point at which an employer has to start questioning the mental stability and
ability of the person in question.

Going around pretending to be an American Indian -- when you're not -- and
calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns seems to cross the line from
academic freedom to mental illness -- although I admit that line is very
tenuous.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Icebound]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Matt Barrow" >
>>
>> "Michael 182" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
>>> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
>>> made
>>> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
>>> irrelevant.
>>
>> Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid for
>> it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
>> it.
>
> Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
> people is a really bad idea. Unfortunately, in a politically charged
> atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure. A
> quick look back at history shows where this leads.

> If the guy's nuts, he'll eventually be ignored by everyone except other
> nuts. .....
>

I would think a market-driven sort of society would embrace that concept....
or are we a market-driven society only when its our own stuff that is
selling to the exclusion of others?? :-)

[Happy Dog]

"Newps" > wrote in

>> But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.
>
> Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.

And, no doubt, you can explain this in a bit more detail. What's the
alternative?

moo

[Bob Fry]

Newps > writes:

> Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.

Huh?

Tenure as we're discussing here is university-level, academic tenure.
The USA still has some of the best universities in the world, and I'd
say tenure is partly responsible for that.

Maybe you're thinking of civil-service protection for grade-school
teachers.

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:EgVRd.12049$zH6.3260@attbi_s53...
>>> Why shouldn't his tenure status be reviewed?
>>
>> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion. The idea in
>> western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
>> opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>
> It's one thing to have an opinion. No one is going to be worried about
> some wacko comparing the victims of 9/11 to the Nazis. Hell, there's a
> nut on every street corner nowadays.
>


There is one Chalmers Johnson, whom I never heard of before today:
http://www.jpri.org/about/officers.html

In checking out Ward Churchill, his name came up, not as a wacko, but as
someone who basically warned of a 911-like scenario...in a book "Blowback"
published in 2000...

This interview, January 2004:
http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/8641.rm (RealPlayer streaming
video)

brings up some interesting "opinion" about the direction of US policy, no
matter which party is in power.

Beware it is 58 minutes long, but it is an opinion that may be worth
hearing, even if you eventually wish to dismiss it.

----
Oderint, dum metuant
- attributed to Roman poet and playwright Lucius
Accius, 170-86 BCE

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:z_9Sd.33326$tl3.26137@attbi_s02...
> [...] I think there is a legitimate point at which an employer has to
> start questioning the mental stability and ability of the person in
> question.

We have appropriate legal channels for determining "mental stability". It
isn't up to the employer to make that decision, and should an employer fire
someone based on an illegal determination of a psychological disorder, they
would be open for a lawsuit for unlawful termination.

Related to that are all the accusations here that Churchill is mentally ill.
No one here is competent to make that determination, both due to lack of
sufficient information as well as lack of sufficient expertise.

> Going around pretending to be an American Indian -- when you're not -- and
> calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns seems to cross the line from
> academic freedom to mental illness -- although I admit that line is very
> tenuous.

Lots of people pretend to be things that they are not. It's called fraud.
It's not an indication of mental illness. That's assuming the allegations
on that topic are true...I haven't seen any proof that they are, and I don't
know enough of the facts one way or the other to comment on whether they
are.

As far as "calling 9/11 victims little Adolf Eichmanns" goes, I don't know
if you've bothered to read Churchill's comments regarding that, but I have
and I feel that he has indeed been quoted out of context, and seriously
misunderstood. Perhaps purposefully...it's not uncommon for enemies of
someone to do anything they can to discredit that person, even to the extent
of severely mischaracterizing what they've said.

Nevertheless, even if the general public's misconception of what his
comments meant was accurate, his comments are only an indication of mental
illness if you believe that ANYONE who disagrees with you is by definition
mentally ill. A perfectly rational person can take the exact same
situation, and come to a completely different evaluation that you do, in
spite of not being mentally ill. It happens here all the time (I don't
think I need to remind you of just how wrong I think pretty much ALL of your
political beliefs are...but I don't consider that a sign of mental illness
on your part).

More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the origin
of terrorism. Terrorists didn't just appear out of nowhere. As awful as
their tactics are, their motivations are related to our demonstrably unfair
and in some cases highly disruptive meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.
Inasmuch as we as Americans continue to tolerate our government's
paternalistic and selfish behavior in the Middle East, we are just as guilty
as our government itself.

The victims in the WTC towers could be thought of as particularly complicit,
in that many of the people who worked there were indeed "movers and shakers"
in the American economy and political arena. They facilitated the American
activities in the Middle East to a much greater extent than probably most
other Americans, simply due to their proximity to the hub of the American
economy.

Do NOT construe any of my comments as condonement of the terrorist
activities. That's not what I'm saying. But to pretend that the terrorists
are just randomly choosing to attack Americans is ridiculous. They targeted
us for a reason, and frankly continuing a policy of aggression rather than
reconciliation is just making terrorism worse.

There. I got sucked in and said my fill. Probably more than I should have.
No doubt people here will jump all over my statements and call me mentally
ill or (worse?) a traitor. Whatever. It would just prove my point.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
> Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the origin
> of terrorism.

Then he is an idiot.

By the same "logic" victims of rape are complicit in the origin of rape.

QED

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:38:56 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote in
>::

>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> [...]
>> I think our great nation, founded on liberty and freedom, is secure
>> enough to tolerate opposing views without committing unconstitutional,
>> totalitarian acts in the name of patriotism. It's the Salem witch
>> hunt mentality all over again. Is that what we want for the 21st
>> century?
>
>I've avoided this thread, as I try to avoid all threads so far off topic.

I'm sorry, but it just happened (like McNicoll knew it would).

>However, I've been impressed with your tenacity, and am compelled to at
>least contribute a heart-felt "Well said!" to this post, as well as all your
>other responses.

Coming from an astute fellow like yourself, that is quite a complement
indeed. Thank you.

>I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
>getting what you're saying,

Oh well....

>but I agree 100% with all you've written
>regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.
>
>Pete
>

100%?! Now I'm truly flattered.

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>> More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
>> Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the
>> origin
>> of terrorism.
>
> Then he is an idiot.
>
> By the same "logic" victims of rape are complicit in the origin of rape.

Really? Your claim is the rape victims actually encourage rape through
their support of government policies that interfere and disrupt other
governments and societies?

I'd say there's an idiot around here, that's true. I'm not convinced it's
Churchill though.

> QED

I don't think that means what you think it means.

Pete

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> >> More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
> >> Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the
> >> origin
> >> of terrorism.
> >
> > Then he is an idiot.
> >
> > By the same "logic" victims of rape are complicit in the origin of rape.
>
> Really? Your claim is the rape victims actually encourage rape through
> their support of government policies that interfere and disrupt other
> governments and societies?

my goodness, you don't see the parallel? You could have asked if rape
victims actually encourage rape through their support of society/government
policies that encourage sexual violence.

WRT to your question: My claim? of course not. quite the opposite.


>
> I'd say there's an idiot around here, that's true. I'm not convinced it's
> Churchill though.

apparently more than one idiot.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm sorry, but it just happened (like McNicoll knew it would).
>

Hey! You asked the question, I just provided an answer.

[Corky Scott]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:47:41 -0800, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

>Do NOT construe any of my comments as condonement of the terrorist
>activities. That's not what I'm saying. But to pretend that the terrorists
>are just randomly choosing to attack Americans is ridiculous. They targeted
>us for a reason, and frankly continuing a policy of aggression rather than
>reconciliation is just making terrorism worse.

Actually Pete, I think they claimed that the attacks were planned as a
reaction to their belief that the holy land was desecrated when
infidels (coalition troops) occupied Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in 1991
during "Desert Storm".

They chose the WTC and the Pentagon, and apparently were also
intending to hit the White House or the Capital building (but that
flight crashed due to the attack of the passengers on board the
airliner when they figured out what their likely fate would be) for
their symbology and, in the case of the WTC, it's vulnerability.

I'd lay the blame at the foot of religion...again.

Corky Scott

[Gary G]

I just got out both my red and green lasers and turned them on myself!
Of course, I wasn't flying, but I'm still a (student) pilot.

Can I get a reward for turning myself in?


"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
>
> Just as the U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta
> Announces New Laser Warning and Reporting System for Pilots*, the USAF
> finds aiming lasers at pilots may not be such a bad idea after all:
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 7 February 18, 2005
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> AIR FORCE PROPOSES LASER WARNING SYSTEM
> The Air Force has begun aiming what it terms "safe" lasers at a test
> aircraft operating out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to
> develop an alternating red-red-green laser light system to warn pilots
> who stray into the Washington-Baltimore airspace without permission.
> "USA Today" reports that operational testing could begin in the spring
> followed by what the Air Force promises will be "intense" briefings
> for pilots operating in the Washington, D.C., area. AOPA officials
> will be among those briefed and the association already is working
> with the Department of Defense and the FAA to learn more about the
> system and how it will be used. AOPA has requested a preview and
> demonstration.
>
>
> *
> http://sev.prnewswire.com/transportation-trucking-railroad/20050112/DCW04712012005-1.html

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Because he is simply expressing an unpopular opinion.
>

Actually, he's doing quite a bit more than that.


>
> The idea in
> western culture is that we don't dick people over for their
> opinions. That behavior we leave to non-western cultures.
>

Nobody's being dicked over for their opinions here.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> Evidently Ward Churchill isn't the only nutbar out there.
>

Certainly not. The left is lousy with them.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> You guys say he's a "nutball." No doubt many others think he's got
> something legit to say. Me, I don't care much what he says 'cause I'm
> from California: far out, dude!
>

Agreed. When a nutball like Churchill wishes to say things which prove he's
a nutball the best thing to do is shut up and let him speak.


>
> So you guys don't like him. Others do. Who decides whether his views
> are useful or not? Time and history do.
>

Sometimes, but in this case we didn't have to wait.


>
> That's why tenure exists, to
> protect the jobs of a relatively few unpopular folk.
>

Tenure protects the jobs of poor teachers.


>
> Unless some academic prof does something *really* egregious, I'm on
> the side of those defending him and his paid, tenured position. He's
> doing what his job description says to do: think, and express the
> result of that thinking. Tenure has a long history behind it; are you
> so willing to chuck it over one guy? That's scary.
>

I was ready to chuck it before I ever heard of Churchill.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
> having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.
>
> But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.
>

Why?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
> pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
> dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
> a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
> granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
> would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
> by the current administration.
>

What rights "granted under the Constitution" are being trampled here?


>
> After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
> exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
> the truth.
>

What noble journalists?


>
> Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
> report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
> is ours.
>

I'd prefer a free, objective press.


>
> Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
> Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
> disparate opinions?
>

The Constitution HAS become meaningless and Churchill had nothing to do with
it.


>
> (Robin Williams delivered this gem on last night's Bill Marr show,
> "Now the Iraqi people must spend time drafting a constitution for
> their country; we could give them ours; we're not using it anymore.")
>

And we haven't been for a very long time. (By the way, if Williams said
that recently he stole the line.)


>
> If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
> perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
> Bush" for what he said:
>

What 1st Amendment right is being denied to Churchill?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> We also don't want to trust our children to analyse opposing or
> ulta-radical views. That might teach them independant thought. They
> might actually do their own research to get closer to truth... so if we
> can't control our educational institutions politically, we might want to
> withdraw their public money and throw them to the mercy of handouts from
> somebody who can.
>

Independent thought taught today on US campuses? Where?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> And, no doubt, you can explain this in a bit more detail. What's the
> alternative?
>

Why must there be an alternative?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tenure as we're discussing here is university-level, academic tenure.
> The USA still has some of the best universities in the world, and I'd
> say tenure is partly responsible for that.
>

Why? Tenure protects poor instructors.

[Peter Duniho]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> my goodness, you don't see the parallel? You could have asked if rape
> victims actually encourage rape through their support of
> society/government
> policies that encourage sexual violence.

Yes, I could have and your analogy would have been just as idiotic. It
would only valid if you assert that the rape victim's government DOES
support sexual violence and that the rape victim did nothing to try to stop
that.

But I do congratulate you on so quickly moving from intelligent discourse to
idiotic inflammatory language. Most Usenet posters require a warm-up, but
you just dove right in.

Pete

[Peter Duniho]

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I'd lay the blame at the foot of religion...again.

The issue is "slightly" more complicated than a single statement about a
single event. Religion is no doubt in the mix, but as usual it's been used
more as a tool for motivation than being the actual root cause.

Pete

[Matt Barrow]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
.. .
> "Matt Barrow" >
> >
> > "Michael 182" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> The writings of an academic are considered part of his body of work. I
> >> personally think Churchill is an idiot, but whether his comments were
> >> made
> >> "in the classroom, in the lecture hall, or even on the campus" is
> >> irrelevant.
> >
> > Not necessarily; his right to free speech does not include being paid
for
> > it, nor is his right being abrogated, only the aspect of being paid for
> > it.
>
> Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
> people is a really bad idea.

True enough, but what this mental furrball is spewing is not merely
offensive, it's nownright demented. This is not the type of pereson we need,
of any persuasion, teaching our youth.

> Unfortunately, in a politically charged
> atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure.

Cite?

> A
> quick look back at history shows where this leads. If the guy's nuts,
he'll
> eventually be ignored by everyone except other nuts.

And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the purpose
of education, especially tax funded "education".

> This sort of thing
> happens in the physical sciences as well.

Cite?

[Matt Barrow]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bob Fry wrote:
> > "Matt Barrow" > writes:
> >
> >
> >>His right to free speech does NOT include being paid to spew his
neurotic
> >>drivel.
> >
> >
> > True, the 1st amendment right to free speech is not about tenure or
> > having a publically paid position to make the offending speech.
> >
> > But tenure is a critical element of western freedoms.

No, rationality is.

>
> Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.

BINGO!!

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:z_9Sd.33326$tl3.26137@attbi_s02...
> > I think you're spitting in the wind and I doubt most of your audience is
> > getting what you're saying, but I agree 100% with all you've written
> > regarding "the Churchill Incident" here.
>
> While I agree with academic tenure, and I fully support every professor's
> right to say whatever he wants, to whomever he wants, in the context of
> "education", without fear of retribution -- I think there is a legitimate
> point at which an employer has to start questioning the mental stability
and
> ability of the person in question.

He's still an employee and while he may be censured and lose tenure, his
freedom of speech is in no way abridged.

He's not jailed, or shipped to the salt mines, and he can still spew his
crap on any street corner and will most likely always have a platform
provided by the MSM.

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote

> Tenure protects the jobs of poor teachers.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It also protects teachers who
do not conform to the status quo.

Don't believe that a poor teacher can not be thrown out. It is difficult,
but it can be done.

In conclusion, don't make solid clad, general statements. They always are
wrong. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote
> >
> > Tenure is one of the main reasons public education is as bad as it is.
>
> BINGO!!
>
>
Statements like that show that you are only smart enough to play a game. ;-)
There are many problems in education, but tenure does not even make the top
ten. For you to say that, shows you are not in agreement with the experts
in education, or it's critics. Do some research.

Low teacher pay is the biggest single reason that public education is in
trouble, IMHO. Most smart people go to the public sector where they can
make double or triple their teacher salary.

A close second is the lack of support teachers get from administration, but
mainly, from most parents. Get a problem child? Meet the parent, *if* you
can get them to come to the school for a meeting. The apple does not fall
very far from the tree.

I said before, that I was not going to get sucked in on this debate. I'm
done, now.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Barrow]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> > Tenure protects the jobs of poor teachers.
>
> Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It also protects teachers
who
> do not conform to the status quo.

Protects them from what?

>
> Don't believe that a poor teacher can not be thrown out. It is difficult,
> but it can be done.

An example of a teacher with tenure being thrown out (other than for
criminal misconduct) would be appreciated.

>
> In conclusion, don't make solid clad, general statements. They always are
> wrong. <g>

Our education systems, from kindergarten all the way through the most
advanced levels is abysmal. It's a bit of the inmates not only running the
asylum but providing the training for the rest of the inmates. :~(

[Morgans]

I remember one of the reasons I had you in the wacko bin. <Plonk>

[Bob Fry]

"Matt Barrow" > writes:

> >
> > > Tenure protects the jobs of poor teachers.
> >
> > Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It also protects teachers
> who
> > do not conform to the status quo.
>
> Protects them from what?

From simple-minded extremists. Look in a mirror....

> > In conclusion, don't make solid clad, general statements. They always are
> > wrong. <g>
>
> Our education systems, from kindergarten all the way through the most
> advanced levels is abysmal.

No, they're not abysmal. USA universities are some of the best in the
world. Most of our grade schools aren't that bad.

Anyway, how could kindergarten be "abysmal?" All you gotta do is play
with toys and take naps. You've been reading too much doomsday
agitprop from conservatives. And you can't even tell the difference
between the tenure discussed in the current thread (academic,
university-level) with standard civil-service rules at the
grade-school level.

I work with engineers from many other countries in my job. The
engineer from the US is still the best, on average. In general
engineers from other countries are far too academic and don't have a
can-do, get the job done attitude. I'll take the US-educated
professional anytime.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. It also protects teachers
> who
> do not conform to the status quo.
>

Why would good teachers that do not conform to the status quo need
protection?


>
> Don't believe that a poor teacher can not be thrown out. It is difficult,
> but it can be done.
>

It would be easier without tenure.


>
> In conclusion, don't make solid clad, general statements. They always are
> wrong. <g>
>

Are you disputing my statement? Does tenure not protect the jobs of poor
teachers?

[Morgans]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote
>
> Why would good teachers that do not conform to the status quo need
> protection?

duh?

> It would be easier without tenure.

Your point is?

> > In conclusion, don't make solid clad, general statements. They always
are
> > wrong. <g>

> Are you disputing my statement? Does tenure not protect the jobs of poor
> teachers?

Yes. It also protects teachers that a principal, or board member gets a
personal hard on for, with no justification other than personal differences.
It does happen.

Now, they can make the teacher's life hell but they can not fire them. Good
thing.

I'm done. Bye.
--
Jim in NC

[John T]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>
> His point was that we are ALL complicit in
> the origin of terrorism.

Y'know, it's comments like this one that earn you the one-finger salute,
Pete.

You're just as entitled to your opinion as Churchill is to his. You're also
just as entitled to the consequences of voicing it.

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> duh?
>

Did you not understand the question?


>
> Your point is?
>

Tenure contributes to lower quality education because it makes it more
difficult to remove bad teachers.


>
> Yes. It also protects teachers that a principal, or board member gets a
> personal hard on for, with no justification other than personal
> differences.
> It does happen.
>
> Now, they can make the teacher's life hell but they can not fire them.
> Good
> thing.
>

Why would a principal or board member make a good teacher's life hell?


>
> I'm done.
>

I'm not surprised.


>
> Bye.
>

Bye.

[[email protected]]

> Why would a principal or board member make a good teacher's life
hell?

OFMG. _Maybe_ you could have been taken seriously before this gem.

[Bob Fry]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > writes:

> Why would a principal or board member make a good teacher's life hell?

This statement alone shows an astounding ignorance of life.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> OFMG. _Maybe_ you could have been taken seriously before this gem.
>

Can you answer the question? Will you?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
>
> This statement alone shows an astounding ignorance of life.
>

Can you answer the question? Will you?

[Jay Honeck]

> More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
> Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the
> origin of terrorism. Terrorists didn't just appear out of nowhere. As
> awful as their tactics are, their motivations are related to our
> demonstrably unfair and in some cases highly disruptive meddling in Middle
> Eastern affairs. Inasmuch as we as Americans continue to tolerate our
> government's paternalistic and selfish behavior in the Middle East, we are
> just as guilty as our government itself.

You know, Peter, I can't decide which is worse: Having a person in academic
authority like Churchill teaching this kind of tripe to our youth, or having
a relatively intelligent member of our society like you exercising moral
relativism (on such a grand scale!) in defense of an indefensible position.

Hell, I don't believe in God most days, but even I can tell right from
wrong. Blaming the victims in the World Trade Center for being complicit in
their own deaths is just so incredibly wrong, I don't even know were to
start. How can anyone possibly argue with someone who has absolutely no
moral belief system whatsoever? There's nothing to push against, or for.

I'll say this about it, though: Your post better illustrates everything
that is wrong with the Left, and its "nothing is black and white in a gray
world" philosophy, than anything I could have ever said.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:30:57 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>::

>this mental furrball is spewing is not merely
>offensive, it's nownright demented.

Are you able to quote a few examples of Churchill's statements that
you feel constitute evidence of his dementia?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:16:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> At any rate, with very limited knowledge (one web page) of Churchill's
>> pronouncements and views, I find the thought of the establishment
>> dismissing him for what he _said_ to be infinitely more appalling, and
>> a true insight into the current trend of trampling citizen's rights
>> granted under the Constitution. His dismissal for this utterance
>> would be a another _tangible_ example of the totalitarian course set
>> by the current administration.
>>
>
>What rights "granted under the Constitution" are being trampled here?
>

Here, none yet. But if Churchill is dismissed by his employer for
what he wrote, that would appear to be a breach of his 1st amendment
right.

The current administration's enactment of the Patriot Act suspends a
citizen's right to due legal process.

....

>
>>
>> After all, noble journalists are currently facing jail time for
>> exercising their 1st amendment rights in providing the American people
>> the truth.
>>
>
>What noble journalists?
>

Judith Miller of the New York Times and Matthew Cooper:

http://www.observer.com/pages/offtherec.asp
The Times and Time Reporters to go to the Supremes
by Tom Scocca

The latest turn in the First Amendment martyrdom of Time’s Matthew
Cooper and The New York Times’ Judith Miller was underdramatic. On
Tuesday, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia posted an 83-page decision online rejecting Mr. Cooper
and Ms. Miller’s claims that they were not bound to give up
confidential sources to a grand jury. The failed appeal left the
two reporters on the hook for contempt—for refusing to cooperate
with the investigation into the leaking of CIA agent Valerie
Plame’s identity to the press—and one step closer to jail, though
still free pending their next appeal.

...

>
>>
>> Is that what we Americans want: the news media to only
>> report what the administration dictates, or a free press? The choice
>> is ours.
>>
>
>I'd prefer a free, objective press.
>

It's difficult to insure an objective press, but freedom of the press
is fundamental in a free society. And it would appear that there is
no Constitutional necessity for an objective press despite it's
desirability.

>
>>
>> Are we going to give Churchill the _power_ to prove that the
>> Constitution has become meaningless, or are we going to tolerate
>> disparate opinions?
>>
>
>The Constitution HAS become meaningless and Churchill had nothing to do with
>it.
>

Perhaps. But I have successfully won legal cases on Constitutional
grounds, so I wouldn't characterize the Constitution as entirely
meaningless.

>
>>
>> If we're going to deny Churchill his 1st Amendment rights, then
>> perhaps we should stop "mad cowboy disease," and impeach the "son of a
>> Bush" for what he said:
>>
>
>What 1st Amendment right is being denied to Churchill?
>

My statement was in the subjunctive tense.

[George Patterson]

Larry Dighera wrote:
>
> Here, none yet. But if Churchill is dismissed by his employer for
> what he wrote, that would appear to be a breach of his 1st amendment
> right.

The first amendment prohibits the *government* from interfering with your
speech. Employers can and do control what you say without breaching your rights.

George Patterson
He who tries to carry a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in
no other way.

[Montblack]

("Steven P. McNicoll")
>> I'm done.

> I'm not surprised.

>> Bye.

> Bye.


Do you like my hat?
I do not like that hat.


Montblack
(Waiting for the President of Harvard angle in this thread)

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
> [...]
> I'll say this about it, though: Your post better illustrates everything
> that is wrong with the Left, and its "nothing is black and white in a gray
> world" philosophy, than anything I could have ever said.

And your post (and John's) simply affirms exactly what I said would happen.
Thank you very much for proving my point.

You're probably too old for you to ever get over the "Left versus Right"
mentality. If you haven't done it by now, you probably never will. But
suffice to say, it's not a useful way to think about things.

Pete

[Icebound]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
> You know, Peter, I can't decide which is worse: Having a person in
> academic authority like Churchill teaching this kind of tripe to our
> youth, or having a relatively intelligent member of our society like you
> exercising moral relativism (on such a grand scale!) in defense of an
> indefensible position.
>


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial
and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so
that security and liberty may prosper together."

---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.



You give our youth way too little credit. They can read President
Eisenhower, they can read Ward Churchill, they can listen to President Bush,
and they will do their own research to reach closer to the truth. If it is
indeed tripe, if the position is indefensible... it won't take that long for
it to be abandoned by the students. Try to suppress an idea, no matter how
obnoxious, and it raises their suspicion that you have something to hide.

You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to
another, but the vast majority will make up their own mind quite well.

The term "Academic authority" may be applicable to a 10-year-old, but I
doubt very much that your average University student holds ANY prof as being
"authority", especially in political and social disciplines.

[Michael 182]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
> news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
>> You know, Peter, I can't decide which is worse: Having a person in
>> academic authority like Churchill teaching this kind of tripe to our
>> youth, or having a relatively intelligent member of our society like you
>> exercising moral relativism (on such a grand scale!) in defense of an
>> indefensible position.
>>
>
>
> "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
> unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
> military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
> misplaced power exists and will persist.
>
> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
> democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert
> and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
> industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
> goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
>
> ---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.
>
>
>
> You give our youth way too little credit. They can read President
> Eisenhower, they can read Ward Churchill, they can listen to President
> Bush, and they will do their own research to reach closer to the truth.
> If it is indeed tripe, if the position is indefensible... it won't take
> that long for it to be abandoned by the students. Try to suppress an
> idea, no matter how obnoxious, and it raises their suspicion that you have
> something to hide.
>
> You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to
> another, but the vast majority will make up their own mind quite well.
>
> The term "Academic authority" may be applicable to a 10-year-old, but I
> doubt very much that your average University student holds ANY prof as
> being "authority", especially in political and social disciplines.
>



I know this adds nothing to the discussion, but I just have to say great
post!

Michael

[Montblack]

("Icebound" wrote)
<snip>
> "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
> unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
> military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
> misplaced power exists and will persist.
>
> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
> democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert
> and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
> industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
> goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
>
> ---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.


It is my understanding that Ike wanted to use the term
Congressional-Military-Industrial Complex (or something similar) but was
talked out of it. It was the critical role Congress plays, in that
corrupting process, that Eisenhower was warning future generations to be on
guard against.

Again, it is my understanding that the gist of the threat was gutted when
'Congressional' was removed from the text.

Also, I seem to recall that Ike wrote a fair amount of that speach himself.


Montblack

[Blueskies]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message ...
> "Jay Honeck" > wrote in message news:e9HSd.16228$4D6.7303@attbi_s51...
>> [...]
>> I'll say this about it, though: Your post better illustrates everything that is wrong with the Left, and its
>> "nothing is black and white in a gray world" philosophy, than anything I could have ever said.
>
> And your post (and John's) simply affirms exactly what I said would happen. Thank you very much for proving my point.
>
> You're probably too old for you to ever get over the "Left versus Right" mentality. If you haven't done it by now,
> you probably never will. But suffice to say, it's not a useful way to think about things.
>
> Pete
>

You know, it is kind of interesting. It used to be everything Red was bad, and there was no blue, it was just USA...

[Blueskies]

"Icebound" > wrote in message ...
>
> You give our youth way too little credit. They can read President Eisenhower, they can read Ward Churchill, they can
> listen to President Bush, and they will do their own research to reach closer to the truth. If it is indeed tripe, if
> the position is indefensible... it won't take that long for it to be abandoned by the students. Try to suppress an
> idea, no matter how obnoxious, and it raises their suspicion that you have something to hide.
>
> You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to another, but the vast majority will make up
> their own mind quite well.
>
> The term "Academic authority" may be applicable to a 10-year-old, but I doubt very much that your average University
> student holds ANY prof as being "authority", especially in political and social disciplines.
>
>


You've got that right!

[Blueskies]

"Montblack" > wrote in message ...

> (Waiting for the President of Harvard angle in this thread)
>


Women teachers should never be given tenure?

[Matt Barrow]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Steven P. McNicoll")
> >> I'm done.
>
> > I'm not surprised.
>
> >> Bye.
>
> > Bye.
>
>
> Do you like my hat?
> I do not like that hat.
>
I like your hat.
I like your cat.

Is the cat there?
It the cat anywhere?

(First Amendment according to Dr. Suess)

[Chris]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ("Steven P. McNicoll")
>> >> I'm done.
>>
>> > I'm not surprised.
>>
>> >> Bye.
>>
>> > Bye.
>>
>>
>> Do you like my hat?
>> I do not like that hat.
>>
> I like your hat.
> I like your cat.
>
> Is the cat there?
> It the cat anywhere?

The cat is in the hat

[Bob Fry]

"Peter Duniho" > writes:

> You're probably too old for you to ever get over the "Left versus Right"
> mentality. If you haven't done it by now, you probably never will. But
> suffice to say, it's not a useful way to think about things.

I don't think age is the factor for being unable to see different
viewpoints (let alone accept some). Rather, it's intellectual
isolation; perhaps a fear, akin to religionists, that a new idea may
upset one's belief system. You might find out that everything you
thought you knew, you didn't.

Anyway, thanks for pointing out the uselessness of "left vs. right",
a.k.a. us vs. them, good vs. evil, right vs. wrong. Binary choices
are good for digital computers and little else.

[Montblack]

("Chris" wrote)
>>> Do you like my hat?
>>> I do not like that hat.

>> I like your hat.
>> I like your cat.

>> Is the cat there?
>> It the cat anywhere?

> The cat is in the hat

Dogs are in the tree.
(NAC) Necessary Aviation Content:
There's a dog piloting a helicopter at the cat-free tree "party."


Montblack

[John T]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>
> And your post (and John's) simply affirms exactly what I said would
> happen. Thank you very much for proving my point.

No, Pete, you're just being as obstinate as you're accusing us of being.

Specifically, what did you personally do that deserved the deaths of over
3000 people? Then tell me what *I* did (since you claim to know me well
enough to include me in the "all of us" you mentioned).

This isn't about Left/Right, Lib/Con. It's about you being an ass.

You want to talk about particular policies of the US and how they may be
justified or not, let's talk. There's certainly room for discussion. Start
accusing me of being complicit in the attack on the USA and you're doing
nothing but picking a fight - and you damned well knew it or you wouldn't be
saying "you proved my point". You remind me of somebody standing in front
of the news cameras putting fire to an American flag "in protest" then
complaining of intolerance when somebody crosses the street to plant a boot
up the burner's ass.

Most reasonable people don't like being poked in the eye then being told
*they* are the intolerant ones after they break the finger doing the poking.

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

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Barrow" >

>> Firing tenured professors because they say something offensive to many
>> people is a really bad idea.
>
> True enough, but what this mental furrball is spewing is not merely
> offensive, it's nownright demented. This is not the type of pereson we
> need,
> of any persuasion, teaching our youth.

There are lots of loony professors. So what.
>
>> Unfortunately, in a politically charged
>> atmosphere, more and more academics are being threatened with censure.
>
> Cite?

http://www.bedfordstmartins.com/composition/patterns/dority.htm
http://www.aaup.org/publications/Academe/2003/03jf/03jfkni.htm
>

>> quick look back at history shows where this leads. If the guy's nuts,
> he'll eventually be ignored by everyone except other nuts.
>
> And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the purpose
> of education, especially tax funded "education".

Yes. Don't trust listeners to make up their own minds.
>
>> This sort of thing
>> happens in the physical sciences as well.
>
> Cite?

Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both whackos.

moo

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> [...]
> Specifically, what did you personally do that deserved the deaths of over
> 3000 people?

What part of "Do NOT construe any of my comments as condonement of the
terrorist
activities" are you having such a hard time comprehending? Are those words
really that big? Maybe you should get a dictionary?

No one *deserves* an attack like those that took down the WTC towers. But
to sit there dumb and happy thinking that it was completely out of the blue,
motivated by nothing that Americans have done, that's just ostrich-think.

Pete

[John T]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message

>
> What part of "Do NOT construe any of my comments as condonement of the
> terrorist
> activities" are you having such a hard time comprehending?

*You* are the one who said "we are all complicit in the origins of
terrorism...we are all guilty". Since the 9/11 attacks were the result of
terrorism and you're saying we're all complicit in the origins of that, I'm
asking what specifically did you, Peter Duniho, do to deserve the deaths
wrought by the terrorism you claim we spawned?

> No one *deserves* an attack like those that took down the WTC towers. But
> to sit there dumb and happy thinking that it was completely out
> of the blue, motivated by nothing that Americans have done, that's
> just ostrich-think.

"We don't deserve it, but it's our fault"? If it's truly our fault (because
of what we've done), then how can you claim we don't deserve it?

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Matt Barrow" >
>
> >
> > And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the
purpose
> > of education, especially tax funded "education".
>
> Yes. Don't trust listeners to make up their own minds.

Oh, yes...students have that ability (they're just marking time in class,
you know) and that option.

These are not merely commentators, but people that have more influence on
young people then even their parents. Of course, in the modern age,
education is much more indoctrination in an agenda than teaching how to
think.

> >
> >> This sort of thing
> >> happens in the physical sciences as well.
> >
> > Cite?
>
> Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both whackos.

And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:16:58 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>I'd prefer a free, objective press.

Then why did you vote for baby Bush:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Barbara News-Press
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Tom Teepen

BUSH GIVES NEW MEANING TO YELLOW JOURNALISM

The Bush administration has handed out government contracts to at
least three journalists who speak and write approvingly of
administration policies. The administration created phony TV
newscasts, with actors pretending to be reporters, and shipped the
tapes to local TV stations to be broadcast as if they were real
reports.

The administration is straining to imprison journalists who refuse to
rat out sources who blew the whistle on administration misdeeds and
back-stairs maneuvers but, as near as anyone can tell, has left
unbothered the journalist, Robert Novak, who outed a CIA agent in
order to embarrass an administration critic.

The administration has held "town meetings" to showcase President Bush
that were actually political rallies with controlled attendance and
pre-screened questions.

And now it turns out the administration infiltrated the White House
press corps with a specially-created "reporter" who was in fact an
operative for a Republican outfit and then used him to ask Mr. Bush
softball questions that were really diatribes against Democrats.

This latest flap, over "Jeff Gannon," is only the most recent in an
ever-lengthening string of dodges by which the Bush presidency has
tried to bamboozle the public in ways whose difference from fraud is
only a legal technicality.

Gannon, supposedly Washington bureau chief for Talon News, turns out
to be one James Dale Gucket, a GOP cadre who was active recently in
the campaign that defeated Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle.

Even under his supposed cover, Mr. Gucket was never more than a GOP
plant. Talon News is an arm of GOPUSA.com, the political plaything of
a group of Texas conservatives. The administration greased his way
into the White House press corps with extraordinary daily passes, a
rare privilege.

Every administration tries to get away with spinning maters to its own
advantage, but this one is running up something of a record in
outright deceitfulness.

It favored conservative syndicated columnists Maggie Gallagher and
Michael McManus with $21,000 and $10,000 contracts respectively, and
columnist and ubiquitous TV talking head Armstrong Williams walked off
with a cool $240,000 in contracts. In effect, TAXPAYERS WERE TAPPED
TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN DECEPTION. ...

The government's General Accounting Office has formally warned federal
agencies that the resort to video news releases that pass as real TV
news violates laws against using appropriated funds for propaganda.
The scam has been used -- that we know of -- by the White House Office
of National Drug Control Policy and, to tout the Medicare drug policy,
by the Health and Human Services Departments's Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid Services.

The "Karen Ryan" and "Mike Morris" you may have seen holding forth on
Bush policies were actors playing journalists, real-world version of
the hokey "I may not be a doctor, but I play one on television"
routine.

This White House is at once deeply secretive and aggressively
deceptive. If you sometimes feel as though you've been hustled into a
mirror maze, that's because you have.

Tom Teepen is a columnist for Cox Newspapers.
----------------------------------------------------------------

So if you think Ward Churchill should be removed from office for
expressing his views publicly, what is your feeling about this US
President's hubris using YOUR OWN MONEY to dupe you with made up
"news"?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Then why did you vote for baby Bush:
>

I don't see the connection. I voted for George Bush because the alternative
was John Kerry.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:18:59 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...


[>>I'd prefer a free, objective press.]
>>
>> Then why did you vote for baby Bush:
>>
>
>I don't see the connection.

You state that you prefer a free press. I post an article that outs
Bush and the GOP's using your tax dollars to manipulate the news
media, and you don't see the connection?!

Oh well ...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> You state that you prefer a free press. I post an article that outs
> Bush and the GOP's using your tax dollars to manipulate the news
> media, and you don't see the connection?!
>
> Oh well ...
>

No, I don't see the connection between preferring a free, objective press
and voting for George Bush.

Oh, by the way, you didn't post an article that outs Bush and the GOP's
using tax dollars to manipulate the news media. You're great for copying
and pasting but you frequently do not understand what you post.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:44:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> You state that you prefer a free press. I post an article that outs
>> Bush and the GOP's using your tax dollars to manipulate the news
>> media, and you don't see the connection?!
>>
>> Oh well ...
>>
>
>No, I don't see the connection between preferring a free, objective press
>and voting for George Bush.

Oh well ...

>Oh, by the way, you didn't post an article that outs Bush and the GOP's
>using tax dollars to manipulate the news media.

What part of the news article I posted do you feel fails to show that?

>You're great for copying and pasting

Thanks, but I typed that article by hand. If there was a link to it,
I'd have posted that too.

>but you frequently do not understand what you post.

That may be true. When/if it occurs, I'd appreciate the courtesy of
being shown exactly how I've misunderstood, so that I can better
understand the truth.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> What part of the news article I posted do you feel fails to show that?
>

You didn't post a news article, you posted a column by Tom Teepen. If
Teepen was ever an objective journalist he gave it up long ago.


>
> Thanks, but I typed that article by hand.
>

I think you're fibbin'.


>
> That may be true. When/if it occurs, I'd appreciate the courtesy of
> being shown exactly how I've misunderstood, so that I can better
> understand the truth.
>

I've done that Larry, many times over the years. You don't make an effort
to understand.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
>
> More importantly, I think that there's some truth to the general gist of
> Churchill's comments. His point was that we are ALL complicit in the
> origin of terrorism. Terrorists didn't just appear out of nowhere. As
> awful as their tactics are, their motivations are related to our
> demonstrably unfair and in some cases highly disruptive meddling in Middle
> Eastern affairs. Inasmuch as we as Americans continue to tolerate our
> government's paternalistic and selfish behavior in the Middle East, we are
> just as guilty as our government itself.
>

Arab/Muslim terrorism predates US involvement in the Middle East by a good
many years. What demonstrably unfair or highly disruptive meddling in
Middle Eastern affairs are you referring to?

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:47:22 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
et>::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> What part of the news article I posted do you feel fails to show that?
>>
>
>You didn't post a news article, you posted a column by Tom Teepen. If
>Teepen was ever an objective journalist he gave it up long ago.
>

Ah, I see. So because it's an editorial piece, you assume the author
is under no obligation to provide true and factual data, he is free to
make it all up?

I am unfamiliar with Mr. Teepen's works. Perhaps you're correct about
Teepen's lack of objectivity, but I'd have to see some impartial
evidence before I'd accept your opinion as fact.

>>
>> Thanks, but I typed that article by hand.
>>
>
>I think you're fibbin'.
>

What possible motivation would I have to fib about typing the article
from the newspaper? Search for the article on the Santa Barbara
News-Press web site; you'll see that it's not available.

Please find the requisite courage to set your cynicism aside, and give
me the benefit of the doubt, or provide some logical and factual
support for your doubt.

The mere fact that you "think" I did not type the article by hand in
no way makes that assertion true. It just provides evidence that you
are willing to make unsubstantiated comments that are not based on
fact but delusion.

>>
>> That may be true. When/if it occurs, I'd appreciate the courtesy of
>> being shown exactly how I've misunderstood, so that I can better
>> understand the truth.
>>
>
>I've done that Larry, many times over the years. You don't make an effort
>to understand.
>

Okay. Let's put the past behind us, and take the current Teepen
article as alleged evidence that I have misunderstood its meaning.
Please provide some evidence (as opposed to opinion) that supports
your contention. Specifically what you think I misunderstood that is
contained in that article? I hereby promise that I'll make every
effort to understand your point of view.
-------------------------------------



All this aside, I want to know what the USAF feels constitutes a "safe
laser." And once defined, will those who shine "safe" lasers at
aircraft still prosecuted under the Patriot Act as occurred in New
Jersey*?

---------------------------
*
http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-8/1104906903307830.xml

Jerseyan charged for pointing laser at aircraft

Morris man denied, then admitted helicopter strike and Tetorboro plane
hit

Wednesday, January 05, 2005
BY RUDY LARINI
Star-Ledger Staff

A Parsippany man who admitted shining a laser beam at a Port Authority
police helicopter on New Year's Eve after first blaming his 7-year-old
daughter has been charged with pointing the laser at a private plane
approaching Teterboro Airport two nights earlier.

David Banach, 38, is charged with two federal offenses -- violating a
provision of the Patriot Act that makes it illegal to interfere with
the operator of a mass transportation vehicle and lying to the FBI.

...

Federal authorities in New Jersey said Banach's arrest, while not
related to any terrorist threat, demonstrates the federal government's
commitment to investigate and prosecute incidents that threaten public
safety.

"We have to send a clear message to the public that there is no
harmless mischief when it comes to airplanes," said U.S. Attorney
Christopher J. Christie. "Mr. Banach's actions as alleged in the
criminal complaint put innocent lives at risk. That is illegal and
unacceptable."

Laser beams can temporarily blind or disorient pilots and possibly
cause a plane to crash, especially during critical periods such as
takeoffs or landings.

"It is important that we do everything we possibly can to ensure the
safety of our nation's air carriers," Joseph Billy Jr., special agent
in charge of the New Jersey FBI office, said in announcing Banach's
arrest. "While this particular incident was not terrorism-related, the
FBI considers this an extremely serious matter as not only was the
safety of the pilot and passengers placed in jeopardy by Banach's
actions, (but) so were countless innocent victims on the ground in
this densely populated area. ...

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ah, I see. So because it's an editorial piece, you assume the author
> is under no obligation to provide true and factual data, he is free to
> make it all up?
>

I'm not assuming anything, I'm familiar with Teepen's work.


>
> I am unfamiliar with Mr. Teepen's works. Perhaps you're correct about
> Teepen's lack of objectivity, but I'd have to see some impartial
> evidence before I'd accept your opinion as fact.
>

You're free to research.


>
> What possible motivation would I have to fib about typing the article
> from the newspaper? Search for the article on the Santa Barbara
> News-Press web site; you'll see that it's not available.
>
> Please find the requisite courage to set your cynicism aside, and give
> me the benefit of the doubt, or provide some logical and factual
> support for your doubt.
>

Why? I don't recall you ever being swayed by facts and logic.


>
> The mere fact that you "think" I did not type the article by hand in
> no way makes that assertion true.
>

That's why I didn't state it as a fact.

[Happy Dog]

"Matt Barrow"
>> > And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the
> purpose of education, especially tax funded "education".
>>
>> Yes. Don't trust listeners to make up their own minds.
>
> Oh, yes...students have that ability (they're just marking time in class,
> you know) and that option.
>
> These are not merely commentators, but people that have more influence on
> young people then even their parents. Of course, in the modern age,
> education is much more indoctrination in an agenda than teaching how to
> think.

Have you been to university? There are plenty of profs who are
controversial. Unless they're saying something politically incorrect, they
don't get much attention outside the ivory tower. Do you really believe
that this guys students are going to be unbale to think their way through
anything he says? Or just the outrageous stuff?
>
>> >
>> >> This sort of thing
>> >> happens in the physical sciences as well.
>> >
>> > Cite?
>>
>> Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both whackos.
>
> And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?

They'll be influenced by bull**** pseudoscience. That was *your* point, no?
Bad profs unduly influencing the sponge-like minds of both undergrad and
grad students?

moo

[Peter Duniho]

"John T" > wrote in message
m...
> "We don't deserve it, but it's our fault"? If it's truly our fault
> (because of what we've done), then how can you claim we don't deserve it?

"Fault" implies cause and effect. "Deserve" is a subjective judgment of
justice.

Until you can comprehend the difference, you'll never have a clue about what
I'm talking about.

Pete

[John T]

Peter Duniho wrote:
>
> "Fault" implies cause and effect. "Deserve" is a subjective judgment
> of justice.

OK, Pete. Kindly tell our esteemed readers what you personally did to cause
the terrorism that spawned the 9/11 attacks. After all, you said you were
"complicit" in that. I'm really curious what is causing your guilt.

After you address that, you can tell me what *I* did (since you so
generously included me in your "guilty" class).

Or can you? I can understand if you can't.

Really.

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

[Matt Barrow]

"Happy Dog" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Matt Barrow"
> >> > And in the meantime he's polluting our youth minds. That's NOT the
> > purpose of education, especially tax funded "education".
> >>
> >> Yes. Don't trust listeners to make up their own minds.
> >
> > Oh, yes...students have that ability (they're just marking time in
class,
> > you know) and that option.
> >
> > These are not merely commentators, but people that have more influence
on
> > young people then even their parents. Of course, in the modern age,
> > education is much more indoctrination in an agenda than teaching how to
> > think.
>
> Have you been to university?

Yeah, probably more than you have and three times as a parent.

> There are plenty of profs who are
> controversial.

Controversial, sure; psychotic, is a whole different story. The braindead
nature of many propfs, now with tax funded tenure, is evident all through
our society.

> Unless they're saying something politically incorrect, they
> don't get much attention outside the ivory tower. Do you really believe
> that this guys students are going to be unbale to think their way through
> anything he says?

Some do, many do. It's the nature of learning. While his spew generated
attention THIS time, it's not unusual in any sense.

He's not a commentator, he's ostensibly a _teacher_.

>Or just the outrageous stuff?

As before, this isn't his only instance and it sure as hell isn't the only
instance, by far, in that loony bin they call _academia_.

> >
> >> >
> >> >> This sort of thing
> >> >> happens in the physical sciences as well.
> >> >
> >> > Cite?
> >>
> >> Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both whackos.
> >
> > And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?
>
> They'll be influenced by bull**** pseudoscience.

Are these guys teachers/professors?

> That was *your* point, no?


Are these guys teachers/professors?

> Bad profs unduly influencing the sponge-like minds of both undergrad and
> grad students?

So, let's just let the status quo run?

I wonder what quality of professors you were expose to? :~)

[Matt Barrow]

> "Happy Dog" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Matt Barrow"
> > >>
> > >> Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both
whackos.
> > >
> > > And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?
> >
> > They'll be influenced by bull**** pseudoscience.
>
Kinda makes you wonder what sort of professors the Nobel committee learned
under, doesn't it?

But that wasn't _your_ point, was it?

On the same line, I've worked with honors students in engineering that can't
do basic math because their professors were discouraged from failing
students that couldn't do math. One of my professors years ago was dismissed
from Rice University for failing so many students. He said, "They can't do
the math, so I'm not going to pass them".

Try to see the big picture. Acquiescing to academia is folly, given that
their mission is NOT education (real education, not the PC/political
agenda), but indoctrination. Churchill is only one instance out of millions.

[Jay Honeck]

> "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
> unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
> military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
> misplaced power exists and will persist.
>
> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or
> democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert
> and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge
> industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
> goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
>
> ---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.

This speech was Ike's finest hour, IMHO -- even more important than his role
in D-Day.

Of course, what he said doesn't have anything to do with what I said, or
what Churchill said -- or what Peter said -- but still, it's a nice thing to
post here once in a while.

> You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to
> another, but the vast majority will make up their own mind quite well.

Brainwashing? The only one who could remotely be accused of trying to
brainwash anyone might be Churchill himself -- but I don't think so. As
you point out, his arguments are so absurd that most intelligent people can
see right through them.

Which, of course, is the whole point. Do we *really* want educators with
such clearly asinine positions on the payroll?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:sg8Td.47724$tl3.44323@attbi_s02...
> This speech was Ike's finest hour, IMHO -- even more important than his
role
> in D-Day.
>
> Of course, what he said doesn't have anything to do with what I said, or
> what Churchill said -- or what Peter said -- but still, it's a nice thing
to
> post here once in a while.
>
> > You may brainwash a few to one ideology, and you may brainwash a few to
> > another, but the vast majority will make up their own mind quite well.
>
> Brainwashing? The only one who could remotely be accused of trying to
> brainwash anyone might be Churchill himself -- but I don't think so. As
> you point out, his arguments are so absurd that most intelligent people
can
> see right through them.

Most, as in 51.5%?


> Which, of course, is the whole point. Do we *really* want educators with
> such clearly asinine positions on the payroll?

That's a fundamental problem with the public education system; it's a _no
win_ situation all around.

http://capmag.com/articlePrint.asp?ID=4135

And this linked article from Thomas Sowell:
http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4136

[Michael 182]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:sg8Td.47724$tl3.44323@attbi_s02...
>> "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
>> unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
>> military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
>> misplaced power exists and will persist.
>>
>> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties
>> or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an
>> alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
>> huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
>> methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
>>
>> ---- President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican), 1961.
>
> This speech was Ike's finest hour, IMHO -- even more important than his
> role in D-Day.
>
> Of course, what he said doesn't have anything to do with what I said, or
> what Churchill said -- or what Peter said -- but still, it's a nice thing
> to post here once in a while.

One might argue that "an alert and knowledgeable citizenry" is the result of
allowing debate and, even more so, academic debate. As I've stated earlier,
I think Churchills comments are idiotic - but they have raised a huge level
of debate here in Colorado (and, to a much lesser extent, here on this
newsgroup) , both on and off campus.


> Which, of course, is the whole point. Do we *really* want educators with
> such clearly asinine positions on the payroll?

I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in those
debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table discussions based
on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.

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

[Happy Dog]

Matt Barrow"

>> There are plenty of profs who are controversial.
>
> Controversial, sure; psychotic, is a whole different story. The braindead
> nature of many propfs, now with tax funded tenure, is evident all through
> our society.

How has the frequency of psychosis been determined? And, although I don't
doubt that the dumbing down of the educational system in general (every
child left behind), I haven't seen a decent alternative to tenure that would
allowed the truly gifted (and productive) a way to continue creating and
pass on knowledge. Up the tuition?
>
>> Unless they're saying something politically incorrect, they
>> don't get much attention outside the ivory tower. Do you really believe
>> that this guys students are going to be unable to think their way through
>> anything he says?
>
> Some do, many do. It's the nature of learning. While his spew generated
> attention THIS time, it's not unusual in any sense.
> He's not a commentator, he's ostensibly a _teacher_.

And students are _learners_. So they must learn what their teachers say.
Right? Look, in anything but hard sciences, and even then some, much of
teaching is commentary. Otherwise, why have teachers at all?
>
>>Or just the outrageous stuff?
>
> As before, this isn't his only instance and it sure as hell isn't the only
> instance, by far, in that loony bin they call _academia_.

And who do you suggest should draw the line? You clearly think there should
be one.
>
>>
>> >> Google Gary Schwarz. Or Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. Both
>> >> whackos.
>> >
>> > And their influence on the young people is...what, exactly?
>>
>> They'll be influenced by bull**** pseudoscience.
>
> Are these guys teachers/professors?

Yes. Scharwtz at Arizona, Josephson at Cambridge.

>> Bad profs unduly influencing the sponge-like minds of both undergrad and
>> grad students?
>
> So, let's just let the status quo run?

To criticize is to volunteer. Suggest something.

moo

[Jay Honeck]

> I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in
> those debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table discussions
> based on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.

Well, now, that's a good point. A lively debate is always good for the
kids, and good for the mind. College-level education depends upon it.

Of course, using that parameter as an educational yard stick, ANY
controversial figure might be considered a good educator, from the worst
racist Nazi sympathizer, to a wild-eyed PETA supporter who burns research
facilities. The debates on these topics could be VERY educational, indeed,
but would we really want an avowed Nazi on the payroll? How about an
arsonist?

I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I draw it where a college
professor equates victims of the WTC attack to Adolf Eichmann, and claims
that they themselves are partially to blame for their own demise. The guy
is a dolt.

Bottom line: It's easy to debate controversial topics without taxpayer
support of the nut cases.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Honeck]

> And, although I don't doubt that the dumbing down of the educational
> system in general (every child left behind), I haven't seen a decent
> alternative to tenure that would allowed the truly gifted (and productive)
> a way to continue creating and pass on knowledge. Up the tuition?

Tenure is a joke.

I live in a city with a major, world-class university. The top three
employers in the county are the University of Iowa, the University Hospitals
and Clinics, and the School District, in that order. As a result, we
reportedly have some of the best schools in the nation.

These fine folks -- all well-meaning and earnest -- are lavished with every
known benefit, from health care, to paid vacations (3 months long, plus
winter breaks, plus spring breaks!) to "sabbaticals" (more vacation) to
tenure (guaranteed-to-the-grave employment) to university-owned vehicles, to
week-long "wellness seminars" (more vacation), to six-figure salaries. The
list goes on and one, and is quite sickening.

What do we get for all this? Teacher's assistants and grad students are now
doing the lion's share of the actual teaching, while our esteemed professors
do their "research" (more vacation) -- and cannot be fired for incompetence,
laziness, or (as in Churchill's case) lunacy. It's criminal. (In fact,
the TAs and grad students have now unionized, in protest of the "slave
wages" they were paid to do all the professor's work. For once, I totally
agree with a unionizing effort, although I'd rather have seen the professors
forced to do their jobs.)

Then, just to really break your heart, tuition costs have skyrocketed each
year, far higher than the annual inflation rate, to the point where only
rich kids can attend what was once known as a "public" university.

Meanwhile, the football coach is the highest paid public employee in the
state, at well over a million (plus all of his Nike endorsements, which
brings his ANNUAL pay to well over $2 million) -- and the graduation rate
among athletes is astoundingly low.

No, the system is badly broken. Those who say we have the finest
universities in the world clearly have not observed the way they operate.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[George Patterson]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>
> > I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in
> > those debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table discussions
> > based on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.
>
> Well, now, that's a good point. A lively debate is always good for the
> kids, and good for the mind. College-level education depends upon it.

When I was an undergrad, few students engaged in debates with professors.
Arguing with one was felt to be a good way to lower your GPA.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Jay Honeck]

> When I was an undergrad, few students engaged in debates with professors.
> Arguing with one was felt to be a good way to lower your GPA.

True enough. I made the mistake of arguing vociferously with my philosophy
professor. I simply wouldn't let him have an easy point, and thoroughly
enjoyed participating in (what I thought was the essential element of the
course) lively debate with him all semester.

For my efforts, I got a C, one of the worst grades I received in college.
Those who toed the line and shut the hell up did much better.

(You'd think I'd learn, sooner or later!? :-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Michael 182]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:0imTd.22145$zH6.134@attbi_s53...

> I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I draw it where a
> college professor equates victims of the WTC attack to Adolf Eichmann, and
> claims that they themselves are partially to blame for their own demise.
> The guy is a dolt.
>
> Bottom line: It's easy to debate controversial topics without taxpayer
> support of the nut cases.

Yes, the line has to be drawn somewhere. I think the difference between us
is that I am much more hesitant to draw the line, and more likely to be
tolerant of views that I personally find repulsive, such as Churchill's. I'd
look at the fact that he is tenured, the groundspring of support he is
receiving from students and faculty peers, as well as the caution against
precipitous action expressed by the university president and weigh that into
my decision.

From the Boulder Daily Camera, a few days ago:

"University of Colorado President Elizabeth Hoffman warned lawmakers Tuesday
against rushing to punish a professor who likened some Sept. 11 victims to
Nazis, saying a misstep could land the university in court and make the
embattled teacher "a very wealthy man at our expense.""

Bottom line: As a taxpayer, I am willing to allow my small contribution to
CU's budget to support controversial professors who espouse, probably
purposefully, radical views in unpopular terms.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:0imTd.22145$zH6.134@attbi_s53...
> > I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in
> > those debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table
discussions
> > based on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.
>
> Well, now, that's a good point. A lively debate is always good for the
> kids, and good for the mind. College-level education depends upon it.
>
> Of course, using that parameter as an educational yard stick, ANY
> controversial figure might be considered a good educator, from the worst
> racist Nazi sympathizer, to a wild-eyed PETA supporter who burns research
> facilities. The debates on these topics could be VERY educational,
indeed,
> but would we really want an avowed Nazi on the payroll? How about an
> arsonist?

Oddly, most of those prof's ("Churchill" types) don't court debate.

Voice of experience here, BTW

>
> I think there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I draw it where a
college
> professor equates victims of the WTC attack to Adolf Eichmann, and claims
> that they themselves are partially to blame for their own demise. The
guy
> is a dolt.

I've asked my kids (22 and 20...both draining their college funds, one at
CU) and they note that for every kids that thinks Churchill ought to be in a
rubber room, probably two or three or more eat his demented drivel up.

>
> Bottom line: It's easy to debate controversial topics without taxpayer
> support of the nut cases.

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:wMmTd.1017$r55.242@attbi_s52...
> > When I was an undergrad, few students engaged in debates with
professors.
> > Arguing with one was felt to be a good way to lower your GPA.
>
> True enough. I made the mistake of arguing vociferously with my
philosophy
> professor. I simply wouldn't let him have an easy point, and thoroughly
> enjoyed participating in (what I thought was the essential element of the
> course) lively debate with him all semester.
>
> For my efforts, I got a C, one of the worst grades I received in college.
> Those who toed the line and shut the hell up did much better.
>
> (You'd think I'd learn, sooner or later!? :-)
> --

I had one prof that loved to debate. I finagled ways to take his classes in
seven out of eight semesters during undergrad years.

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote

> Tenure is a joke.

I respect you right to your opininon, so I'll let that one go.

> These fine folks -- all well-meaning and earnest -- are lavished with
every
> known benefit, from health care, to paid vacations (3 months long, plus
> winter breaks, plus spring breaks!)

Whoa, there. Where did you get the idea that the summers they don't work
are paid vacations? That is inncorect.

They do get their pay spread out for 12 months. They can choose to get it
immediately, monthly as do most other people. If they don't get paid in the
summer, it does not sound like vacation to me.

Another point in support of my position. If you have a job that has
vacation, you can take it any time of the year, right? If you work for a
real small employer, you might have to coordinate with the other people, so
every one is not out at the same time, but otherwise, put in you papers, and
take your vaction.

Teachers can get time off during the normal school days, if they take one
of their few personal days, or a sick day, or unpaid leave. That does not
sound like vacation, to me.

to "sabbaticals" (more vacation) to
> tenure (guaranteed-to-the-grave employment) to university-owned vehicles,
to
> week-long "wellness seminars" (more vacation), to six-figure salaries.
The
> list goes on and one, and is quite sickening.

Sounds like Iowa has figured out a way to get qualified people to live out
there. I'll have to admit that thepackage you describe sounds quite
appealing.

> Then, just to really break your heart, tuition costs have skyrocketed each
> year, far higher than the annual inflation rate, to the point where only
> rich kids can attend what was once known as a "public" university.

Have you attempted to compare the percentage increase in tuition, and
percentage increase in professor's salary? (and fringes) I bet you will
find the tuition increase is much higher, but the professor pay is not that
much higher. If your state legislature is like ours, they have cut higher
education support back, severely. The universities have no choice but to
make up the shortfalls to the students. It *is* unfare. Fortunately, there
are still good student loans to be had. I feel the financial pain. I have
one in medical school, and one in college, and this on two teacher (high
school) salaries. NC is not anywhere near the top of the nation's teacher
pay list.
>
> Meanwhile, the football coach is the highest paid public employee in the
> state, at well over a million (plus all of his Nike endorsements, which
> brings his ANNUAL pay to well over $2 million) -- and the graduation rate
> among athletes is astoundingly low.

That does suck, I will agree. College athletics is professional sports.
Someone needs to admit it.

Jay, for an intelligent, educated person, I am disappointed in your comment
about the vacation. I will not argue with your opinion about all of the
other issues. It is your right to hold those opinions, but you are wrong
about the three months vacation.
--
Jim in NC

[Jay Honeck]

> Jay, for an intelligent, educated person, I am disappointed in your
> comment
> about the vacation.

Well, Jim, perhaps *you* work all summer -- but I know an awful lot of
teachers and professors in Iowa City who choose to travel, or simply read
books for three months.

To which, by the way, I say "more power to them." The ONLY reason I was
attracted to teaching when I graduated from college (back in 1981, when
English teachers were more common than grains of sand on a beach) was to get
those three months off.

And those 2 weeks at Christmas.

And that week at Easter.

And every Saturday and Sunday.

Don't get me wrong, teachers more than earn their pay the rest of the
year -- but don't try to tell me that they are under-compensated, or that
they don't get enough time off. Cuz I'm here to tell you, a teacher gets
more paid vacation in any four year period than I've had off in my entire
working life.

That's 24 YEARS, by the way.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans]

"Jay Honeck" wrote

> I know an awful lot of
> teachers and professors in Iowa City who choose to travel, or simply read
> books for three months.

Fine, if they can afford it, but it is absolutely not paid vacation.
Teachers work 9 months a year. Period. That is what their contract says.
They get they pay deferred over 12 months, if they choose. You could not
have the option of getting all your pay in less months than what you are
employed for, if you really were on contract, and that was 3 months of paid
vacation.

> To which, by the way, I say "more power to them." The ONLY reason I was
> attracted to teaching when I graduated from college (back in 1981, when
> English teachers were more common than grains of sand on a beach) was to
get
> those three months off.

Right. The joke was always there are three reasons to be a teacher. June,
July and August. Still not paid vacation. Think of it as manditory time
off. You don't have the option of working, and banking, or getting credit
for having worked on those "vacation" days, since they are NOT vacation
days.

> And those 2 weeks at Christmas.

Not paid vacation. My contract is for 180 days with students, and 20
various other continuing education days, of which about 4 days *are*
vacation, (which are *scheduled* for you, such as Federal Holidays) No free
will, as most people have with their vacation days.

> And that week at Easter.

Not paid vacation.

> And every Saturday and Sunday.

As if most so called professionals work Saturday and Sunday.

> Don't get me wrong, teachers more than earn their pay the rest of the
> year -

I'm glad you appreciate teachers.

>- but don't try to tell me that they are under-compensated,

Well, I know college teachers get paid more, but my wife and I teach high
school. My wife also works for 4 weeks in the summer to make more money, to
try and make ends meet. I work in the summer and weekends sometimes, doing
construction to make enough to help pay the bills. I drive a 1987 Chevy
van, with over 250,000 miles on it. My wife bought her *first* new car
*ever* this year, with the understanding that she will have to work her 31st
year, instead of retireing at 30, in order to pay for it. We live in a
2,400 sf house built in about 1956. We go out very little, and do not have
luxurys like HDTVs, or plasma TVs. I don't think we are particularly well
compensated, for 5 year and 4 year college grads. You can look up what we
get paid, I'm sure, if you (or anyone else) is really curious.

>or that they don't get enough time off.

Time off, yea right. I take a week to go to OSH, and a week to go to the
beach, but that's it.

> Cuz I'm here to tell you, a teacher gets
> more paid vacation in any four year period than I've had off in my entire
> working life.

*Not* paid vacation. Absolutely not. Time off, yes, but not paid. How
many professionals do you know that work for a reputable employer for 30
years, and only get 4 days of paid vacation?

> That's 24 YEARS, by the way.

I hope I have explained the difference between paid vacation and time off.
This is a sore spot with me. If you can't see my point, we'll have to agree
to disagree.
--
Jim in NC

[Bob Fry]

"Jay Honeck" > writes:

> Cuz I'm here to tell you, a teacher gets
> more paid vacation in any four year period than I've had off in my entire
> working life.

That says a lot more about your choices than anything about teachers.

Ya know, your attitude reminds me of Burt Rutan's. The only way that
guy gets satisfaction is bashing NASA. He seems incapable--from what
I've seen on the TV--of deriving enjoyment purely from his own
efforts. No, he always compares his work against the government's
efforts, finds fault with them, and *then* takes satisfaction in
what's he's accomplished. Pretty pathetic.

[Dave Stadt]

"Bob Fry" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay Honeck" > writes:
>
> > Cuz I'm here to tell you, a teacher gets
> > more paid vacation in any four year period than I've had off in my
entire
> > working life.
>
> That says a lot more about your choices than anything about teachers.
>
> Ya know, your attitude reminds me of Burt Rutan's. The only way that
> guy gets satisfaction is bashing NASA. He seems incapable--from what
> I've seen on the TV--of deriving enjoyment purely from his own
> efforts. No, he always compares his work against the government's
> efforts, finds fault with them, and *then* takes satisfaction in
> what's he's accomplished. Pretty pathetic.

Utterly outstanding in my book. The guy can do more with $10 than the
government can do with $1,000,000. His accomplishments certainly give him
the right to strut a little and what is wrong with one taking satisfaction
for a job well done. When has NASA ever developed anything that can compete
with a longEZ or SpaceshipOne at any cost? Heck, I'd nominate him to run
NASA in a heart beat, throw in the FAA also. This country needs several
hundred thousand people that have Burt's attitude and can produce like he
produces. The sideburns are another story.

[Jay Honeck]

> I hope I have explained the difference between paid vacation and time off.
> This is a sore spot with me. If you can't see my point, we'll have to
> agree
> to disagree.

I understand your point, but it's all semantics. If you can make enough to
live on in just 9 months, well, by golly, you're doing better than most of
us. Call the rest of the year "unpaid" is you'd like.

To put it another way: If I took three months off -- "paid" or not -- from
any job I've ever had, I'd have been terminated. Yet, for some reason,
teachers are a protected class that still get the "harvest season" off --
even though less than 2% of Americans still farm the land.

Now do you see *my* point?

Again, this is hardly the topic of discussion, and I think most teachers
earn their compensation -- especially ones like you who have to teach kids
like mine all day long. Heck, if it weren't for the three months off,
society would have to pay teachers twice as much to attract the same caliber
people. Looking at it that way, 3 months off is a real bargain.

"Professors", on the other hand, rank right up there with Burt Rutan's
sideburns...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 15:21:32 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <0imTd.22145$zH6.134@attbi_s53>::

>> I'd be happy to have my kids attend Churchill's classes and engage in
>> those debates. In fact, we have been having a few dinner table discussions
>> based on his comments. Sounds like a successful educator to me.
>
>Well, now, that's a good point. A lively debate is always good for the
>kids, and good for the mind ...

I agree.

Bill Maher had two guests on last Friday's Real Time show* on HBO.
First Maher had a candid interview with Ward Churchill, and asked
about his "little Eichmann" statement. Then the brother of one of the
WTC victims confronted Churchill. It was a most enlightening
discussion.

At the end of that discussion, Maher mentioned that he thought it
would be a good idea to place a memorial marker on the site where the
WTC towers stood before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
Maher thought the words "WHY DO THEY HATE US?" would be an appropriate
inscription for that memorial marker. Churchill agreed, and the WTC
victim's brother disagreed.

The question of "WHY DO THEY HATE US?" seems to be the real crux of
the Churchill issue, but it is somehow overshadowed by the emotional
empathy and hysteria generated in the minds of many US citizens who
witnessed the live televised cataclysmic events. So now, over 3 years
later, perhaps it's about time to attempt to explain what could have
been the root cause that was so repugnant to the terrorists as to
cause them expend considerable time, money and a score of lives in
accomplishing their abominable deeds on that fateful day.

Why do they hate us? Is the source of the terrorists' enmity based in
irrational religious dogma, or is it rationally based on past US
deeds? To the extent that Ward Churchill causes us US citizens to
wipe away our tears and ponder those questions, he has succeeded in
sparking useful discussion. Some of us, overcome with grief and
anger, choose to remain fixated on the horror of 9/11 to the exclusion
of examining its cause. Others of us seek to understand the cause,
and take steps to see that it isn't repeated. Whether oppressive
Homeland Security laws or modification of US foreign policy is going
to be the most successful course for preventing future terrorist acts
against the US remains to be seen.

WHY DO THEY HATE US?


*
http://boards.hbo.com/thread.jspa?threadID=100000091&tstart=0&start=-1

[Jay Honeck]

> WHY DO THEY HATE US?

I know I shouldn't take the bait, but:

Yours is a meaningless question at this stage. The time to ask (or answer)
that question -- even if one found any validity in it -- has long since
past.

Here are the cold, hard facts: They hate us. They want to kill us. They
have killed us.

Once they crossed that line, the validity of your question evaporated.
There is no longer any reason to ponder -- or care -- *why* they hate us,
for all of our energies must now be focused entirely upon rooting out and
destroying them, wherever they live.

I, for one, prefer not to wait until they come to our house again.

Bottom line: Wringing your hands wondering *why* a murderer has just killed
your family is probably not productive. Making sure it doesn't happen to
the rest of your family is...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> WHY DO THEY HATE US?
>
> I know I shouldn't take the bait, but:
>
Nor should I, but:

> Yours is a meaningless question at this stage. The time to ask (or
> answer) that question -- even if one found any validity in it -- has
> long since past.
>
> Here are the cold, hard facts: They hate us. They want to kill us.
> They have killed us.
>
I see the cold, hard facts a little differently. They hate us (because of
how we relate to "them"). "They" want(ed) to kill us to get our attention.
"They" did so. "We" still don't get it.

> Once they crossed that line, the validity of your question evaporated.
> There is no longer any reason to ponder -- or care -- *why* they hate
> us, for all of our energies must now be focused entirely upon rooting
> out and destroying them, wherever they live.
>
There are so many problems with this idea that it's hard to know where to
begin. For example: are we rooting out and destroying "them" in greater
numbers than we are creating "them"? The answer given by many of those
doing the "rooting and destroying" is "no".

> I, for one, prefer not to wait until they come to our house again.
>
> Bottom line: Wringing your hands wondering *why* a murderer has just
> killed your family is probably not productive. Making sure it
> doesn't happen to the rest of your family is...
>
There are other cold hard facts to consider here. We aren't dealing with
"a murderer". We're dealing with entire cultures who just don't happen to
appreciate our way of going about things. So, to make sure they don't try
to kill the rest of our family, perhaps the best approach is to go about
things differently? If so, the best question to ask is "why do they hate
us?", as only an understanding and addressing of that question can lead to
peace.

Best regards,

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> There are other cold hard facts to consider here. We aren't dealing with
> "a murderer". We're dealing with entire cultures who just don't happen to
> appreciate our way of going about things. So, to make sure they don't try
> to kill the rest of our family, perhaps the best approach is to go about
> things differently? If so, the best question to ask is "why do they hate
> us?", as only an understanding and addressing of that question can lead to
> peace.

Well, Neil, I hear you -- but I don't believe that our enemies really care
about how we "change our ways." It's clearly gone beyond all that. (As if
"we" had the ability to "change our ways" anyway -- whatever all that
means.)

At best, your suggestion only works if you believe that our culture isn't
superior to that which predominated during the 6th Century, A.D. -- which is
about where the terrorists are today. If you think that "changing our ways"
to suit their barbaric view of the world will ensure peace, I suggest you
study Neville Chamberlain and what his government did with the Nazis, some
65 years ago.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dylan Smith]

In article <flYWd.42705$r55.9673@attbi_s52>, Jay Honeck wrote:
> At best, your suggestion only works if you believe that our culture isn't
> superior to that which predominated during the 6th Century, A.D. -- which is
> about where the terrorists are today. If you think that "changing our ways"
> to suit their barbaric view of the world will ensure peace, I suggest you
> study Neville Chamberlain and what his government did with the Nazis, some
> 65 years ago.

It'd be nice if the IRA (Irish republican terrorists) and NORAID (their
north American funders) would change their ways too, but they insist
that labeling the IRA as 'terrorists' is British government propaganda.
Of course, blowing up a shopping mall in the middle of Manchester is not
terrorism by NORAID's definition.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man

[Jay Honeck]

> It'd be nice if the IRA (Irish republican terrorists) and NORAID (their
> north American funders) would change their ways too, but they insist
> that labeling the IRA as 'terrorists' is British government propaganda.
> Of course, blowing up a shopping mall in the middle of Manchester is not
> terrorism by NORAID's definition.

Agreed. I wish our vaunted "Homeland Security" would pay more attention to
these types of groups.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Matt Barrow]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
. ..
> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
> >> WHY DO THEY HATE US?
> >
> > I know I shouldn't take the bait, but:
> >
> Nor should I, but:
>
> > Yours is a meaningless question at this stage. The time to ask (or
> > answer) that question -- even if one found any validity in it -- has
> > long since past.
> >
> > Here are the cold, hard facts: They hate us. They want to kill us.
> > They have killed us.
> >
> I see the cold, hard facts a little differently. They hate us (because of
> how we relate to "them"). "They" want(ed) to kill us to get our attention.
> "They" did so. "We" still don't get it.

Geez, do you suppose the reasons they DID give, which are not even close to
the one's you propose, well, they might have lied?

GAFC.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:hHZWd.41739$Ze3.32440@attbi_s51...
>> It'd be nice if the IRA (Irish republican terrorists) and NORAID (their
>> north American funders) would change their ways too, but they insist
>> that labeling the IRA as 'terrorists' is British government propaganda.
>> Of course, blowing up a shopping mall in the middle of Manchester is not
>> terrorism by NORAID's definition.
>
> Agreed. I wish our vaunted "Homeland Security" would pay more attention
> to these types of groups.
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"


They are more focused on preventing the last attack from being repeated than
in preventing the next attack. That and politics. Recently the Dept of
Homeland Security gave the Bonner County Sheriff a grant for almost $1
million for "anti-terrorism" training. They assaulted condemmed buildings
with machine guns (why that was so expensive, I don't know) Bonner County
is in North ID and the largest city, Sandpoint, has a population of less
than 7,000, making it a worthless target for terrorists. Just pork that our
children will have to pay for.

Mike
MU-2

[Doug Carter]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> They [Homeland Security] are more focused on preventing the last attack from being repeated than
> in preventing the next attack.

Have you been to many HSD meetings?

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:18:44 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote in
>::

[...]

>Geez, do you suppose the reasons they DID give, which are not even close to
>the one's you propose, ...

What reasons did they give?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> There are other cold hard facts to consider here. We aren't dealing
>> with "a murderer". We're dealing with entire cultures who just don't
>> happen to appreciate our way of going about things. So, to make sure
>> they don't try to kill the rest of our family, perhaps the best
>> approach is to go about things differently? If so, the best question
>> to ask is "why do they hate us?", as only an understanding and
>> addressing of that question can lead to peace.
>
> Well, Neil, I hear you -- but I don't believe that our enemies really
> care about how we "change our ways." It's clearly gone beyond all
> that. (As if "we" had the ability to "change our ways" anyway --
> whatever all that means.)
>
Well, they say they *do* care about many of the ways that we insert
ourselves in in their midst. The Palestinian issue; our general disrespect
for Islamic (not even radical) traditions, etc.

> At best, your suggestion only works if you believe that our culture
> isn't superior to that which predominated during the 6th Century,
> A.D. -- which is about where the terrorists are today.
>
I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, Jay. I can't help but think
that were the shoe to be on the other foot, we'd be acting in pretty much
the same way that "the terrorists" are, so it may be more an issue of
opportunity than culture. I think we're pretty much confused about what a
terrorist is, given that we assign that label on the basis of who we have
a beef with rather than what people do. But, that's another topic, I
guess.

> If you think
> that "changing our ways" to suit their barbaric view of the world
> will ensure peace, I suggest you study Neville Chamberlain and what
> his government did with the Nazis, some 65 years ago.
>
Make no mistake, I'm not advocating appeasement or sticking our heads in
the sand as was done then. But, I do think that part of getting our heads
*out* of the sand is to look at how "we" are perceived by "them". Know thy
enemy, and all. However, it seems that our government has an interest in
preventing "us" from knowing our enemy, and I can't see that as a good
thing.

Regards,

Neil

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 04:12:55 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in
<bxQWd.100646$tl3.67686@attbi_s02>::

>> WHY DO THEY HATE US?
>
>I know I shouldn't take the bait, but:

That's the same feeling I had when McNicoll initially dangled his
Churchill bait.

>Yours is a meaningless question at this stage. The time to ask (or answer)
>that question -- even if one found any validity in it -- has long since
>past.

Bill Maher indicated that he offered his suggestion for the "WHY DO
THEY HATE US?" memorial during the time decisions were being formed
for what to erect on the site in place of the former WTC towers.

>Here are the cold, hard facts: They hate us. They want to kill us. They
>have killed us.

Um... It's even worse than that. "They" are schooling their progeny
in becoming human bombs. That coupled with the million annual illegal
emigrants entering through our southern border is a prescription for
terror beyond anything we have yet known in this country. So what
does the Bush administration do? It continues to fail to interdict
those illegal emigrants, and it launches a duplicitous attack against
Iraq!

>Once they crossed that line, the validity of your question evaporated.

Let me see if my understanding of that statement is accurate. You are
saying, that once the terrorist acts were committed, it became invalid
to ask the underling reason for them?

>There is no longer any reason to ponder -- or care -- *why* they hate us,
>for all of our energies must now be focused entirely upon rooting out and
>destroying them, wherever they live.

I find such a shortsighted attitude tantamount to head-in-sand
thinking at best. They can breed faster than you can destroy them.
If we are to ever again enjoy peace in this country, the cause must be
attacked, as well as the symptom.

If the true cause of the enmity toward the US could be discovered,
perhaps that information could be used to modify US behavior and thus
prevent additional Islamic terrorist acts against the US as well as
those of others whom our nation's actions may provoke in the future.

Here's an example. I was recently told that the US deposed the
constitutional monarchy government of Iran, and put the Shah in
power*. I don't know if that is true, but assuming it may be
accurate, how would you feel if baby Bush were deposed by foreign
government operatives, and a repressive dictatorship were to reign
over the US? Would it anger you to the point of taking retaliatory
action?

>I, for one, prefer not to wait until they come to our house again.

So what are you doing instead of waiting? :-)

Actively taking steps to bring justice to those who perpetrated the
terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 seems appropriate. But from what
I've seen in the news media, that has nothing to do with waging war in
Iraq.

In addition to waiting for the next terrorist attack, we could make
the current administration aware of the fact that we feel squandering
our future generations' wealth in Iraq is abuse of power. But that
would require removing our collective heads from the sand and
examining the facts.

>Bottom line: Wringing your hands wondering *why* a murderer has just killed
>your family is probably not productive.

It's not productive UNLESS it provides information that can be used to
preempt subsequent attacks.

>Making sure it doesn't happen to the rest of your family is...

Don't get me wrong. I believe bringing Osama to justice is the right
thing to do. Whether his cause is just or not, his means are a
barbaric abomination.

But squandering trillions of dollars of our childrens' earnings in
Iraq isn't going to stop terrorist attacks against the US. I see it
as an audacious, opportunistic manipulation by the GOP to further a
greedy agenda. It has further alienated world opinion toward the US
at a time when it already had fears of the world's ONLY superpower's
future intentions.

Perhaps if we can understand why "they" hate us, we can prevent our
government from provoking further terrorist acts.


Isn't the real reason we choose not to answer the question, "WHY DO
THEY HATE US?, because we fear what we may find upon self examination
was committed in our collective name?



* http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Iran_CIAHits.html

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 13:06:19 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote in <flYWd.42705$r55.9673@attbi_s52>::

>> There are other cold hard facts to consider here. We aren't dealing with
>> "a murderer". We're dealing with entire cultures who just don't happen to
>> appreciate our way of going about things. So, to make sure they don't try
>> to kill the rest of our family, perhaps the best approach is to go about
>> things differently? If so, the best question to ask is "why do they hate
>> us?", as only an understanding and addressing of that question can lead to
>> peace.
>
>Well, Neil, I hear you -- but I don't believe that our enemies really care
>about how we "change our ways."

What facts make you hold that belief?

>It's clearly gone beyond all that. (As if "we" had the ability to "change
>our ways" anyway -- whatever all that means.)

It means standing up and telling our government, through our
representatives, that we find the practices they have committed in our
collective name do not reflect our true desires.

>At best, your suggestion only works if you believe that our culture isn't
>superior to that which predominated during the 6th Century, A.D. -- which is
>about where the terrorists are today.

Perhaps, now we're getting to the crux of the matter. So you believe,
that because our cultural supremacy, we have the right to impose our
will over less advanced cultures?

>If you think that "changing our ways" to suit their barbaric view of the
>world will ensure peace, I suggest you study Neville Chamberlain and
>what his government did with the Nazis, some 65 years ago.

I doubt Neil is suggesting that the US attempt to negotiate with
openly militaristic nations bent on world domination. Your
Chamberlain reference appears to be a non sequitur.

I don't see the issue as "changing our ways to suit their barbaric
view of the world" as much as changing our government's actions to
bring them in line with the fine moral values of the majority of our
nation's people.

[Jay Beckman]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>
>>> There are other cold hard facts to consider here. We aren't dealing
>>> with "a murderer". We're dealing with entire cultures who just don't
>>> happen to appreciate our way of going about things. So, to make sure
>>> they don't try to kill the rest of our family, perhaps the best
>>> approach is to go about things differently? If so, the best question
>>> to ask is "why do they hate us?", as only an understanding and
>>> addressing of that question can lead to peace.
>>
>> Well, Neil, I hear you -- but I don't believe that our enemies really
>> care about how we "change our ways." It's clearly gone beyond all
>> that. (As if "we" had the ability to "change our ways" anyway --
>> whatever all that means.)
>>
> Well, they say they *do* care about many of the ways that we insert
> ourselves in in their midst. The Palestinian issue; our general disrespect
> for Islamic (not even radical) traditions, etc.
>

Neil,

I lived in Tehran, Iran back in 1976-1977 and therefore had a keen interest
in events that took place there not long after I returned to the U.S.A. And
I try to keep up with the reality as it exists today.

While living there, we were often reminded to respect both the religious and
cultural aspects of Iranian life. We knew when it might not be safe to be
on the streets (passions run high during Ramadan...) and which parts of town
to stay out of.

We learned early on that (at least in Iran) the Middle East is rife with
contradictions. What you see is rarely what you get. I'll never forget the
sight of an Iranian woman jumping over a puddle while crossing the street
and her "Chador" blew open revealing the fact that she was wearing a very
expensive, bright yellow business suit and yellow 3" stilletto heels. And
before anyone asks why she wasn't stoned on the spot...at the time, the
"Chador" was culteral in nature and not required by any Islamic tennets.
Unlike now where the zealots want to drive Iran (and the rest of the Middle
East) back to the stone age.

After the Embassy was seized, while the TV cameras were focused on the
"mob", I was getting letters from Iranian friends bemoaning the loss of
friends, dollars, goods and all the other things that they came to know and
like about America. The American TV networks even eventually reported
this...of course, they waited until about day 400 of 444 to do so.

Iran and much of the Middle East went, quite litterally, from camels to cars
in a very short space of time. They tasted success and a modicum of self
determination (the Shah not withstanding...he and his wife (especially) did
do some good things in Iran) and I think, in time, they are going to want it
back.

I saw this article...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103517/site/newsweek/?GT1=6305

....and I have to agree with the author. Frankly, the issues in the Middle
East (by and large...) have very little to do with America or American
policies and a whole lot more to do with their own internal politics and
pressures.

Regards,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Beckman > posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:
>>
>>>> There are other cold hard facts to consider here. We aren't dealing
>>>> with "a murderer". We're dealing with entire cultures who just
>>>> don't happen to appreciate our way of going about things.
[...]
>>>
>>> Well, Neil, I hear you -- but I don't believe that our enemies
>>> really care about how we "change our ways."
[...]
>>>
>> Well, they say they *do* care about many of the ways that we insert
>> ourselves in in their midst. The Palestinian issue; our general
>> disrespect for Islamic (not even radical) traditions, etc.
>>
>
> Neil,
>
> I lived in Tehran, Iran back in 1976-1977 and therefore had a keen
> interest in events that took place there not long after I returned to
> the U.S.A. And I try to keep up with the reality as it exists today.
>
> While living there, we were often reminded to respect both the
> religious and cultural aspects of Iranian life. We knew when it
> might not be safe to be on the streets (passions run high during
> Ramadan...) and which parts of town to stay out of.
>
> We learned early on that (at least in Iran) the Middle East is rife
> with contradictions. What you see is rarely what you get. I'll
> never forget the sight of an Iranian woman jumping over a puddle
> while crossing the street and her "Chador" blew open revealing the
> fact that she was wearing a very expensive, bright yellow business
> suit and yellow 3" stilletto heels. And before anyone asks why she
> wasn't stoned on the spot...at the time, the "Chador" was culteral in
> nature and not required by any Islamic tennets. Unlike now where the
> zealots want to drive Iran (and the rest of the Middle East) back to
> the stone age.
>
> After the Embassy was seized, while the TV cameras were focused on the
> "mob", I was getting letters from Iranian friends bemoaning the loss
> of friends, dollars, goods and all the other things that they came to
> know and like about America. The American TV networks even
> eventually reported this...of course, they waited until about day 400
> of 444 to do so.
>
> Iran and much of the Middle East went, quite litterally, from camels
> to cars in a very short space of time. They tasted success and a
> modicum of self determination (the Shah not withstanding...he and his
> wife (especially) did do some good things in Iran) and I think, in
> time, they are going to want it back.
>
> I saw this article...
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7103517/site/newsweek/?GT1=6305
>
> ...and I have to agree with the author. Frankly, the issues in the
> Middle East (by and large...) have very little to do with America or
> American policies and a whole lot more to do with their own internal
> politics and pressures.
>
I think this is addressing a completely different issue, Jay. Cultures are
not monolithic; not there, not here. Indeed "... most politics (are)
local". The issue of terrorism is not one between the reasonable majority
of either culture. Religious zealots are a problem wherever they are,
there or here.

What motivates people to attack others, sacrificing their lives in the
process? Does that not seem like an act of ultimate desparation, borne out
of frustration and a sense that there is nothing more to lose? People from
all over the world are equally accessible to "them", so I doubt that we
are just a random target in that process. So, how can we simply deny that
there is any credibility to their claims about our role in their neck of
the woods?

Regards,

Neil

[Jay Honeck]

> What motivates people to attack others, sacrificing their lives in the
> process? Does that not seem like an act of ultimate desparation, borne out
> of frustration and a sense that there is nothing more to lose?

Actually, it is a sign of mental illness.

I'm eternally amazed that there are people trying to analyze brutal acts of
terror, as if there is some root cause that "we" (whoever "we" are) can
address.

Face facts: People who blow themselves up on a crowded school bus full of
kids are not rational beings. If they were, they would be working to make
the electoral process in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever) work
better -- or any of a thousand other positive, constructive acts -- rather
than killing innocents.

To glorify their "cause" by analyzing their motives plays directly into
their hand. They do not deserve such an honor.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> What motivates people to attack others, sacrificing their lives in
>> the process? Does that not seem like an act of ultimate desparation,
>> borne out of frustration and a sense that there is nothing more to
>> lose?
>
> Actually, it is a sign of mental illness.
>
> I'm eternally amazed that there are people trying to analyze brutal
> acts of terror, as if there is some root cause that "we" (whoever
> "we" are) can address.
>
In other words, you believe that these are purely random acts without any
purpose, and that, for some reason, there are significant number of
mentally ill people willing to perform these acts?

Your comments do a great disservice to all those in our own military who,
facing impossible odds and/or realizing that they must sacrifice their
lives for the benefit of their comrades in arms did not shrink from the
task, but did so willingly. Surely, you aren't suggesting that these
heroes were mentally ill, and that condition allowed them to lay down
their lives for others? It seems to me that what we're talking about is a
matter of perspective. It depends on where one stands and how one sees
one's options that determine actions.

Best regards,

Neil

[Doug Carter]

Neil Gould wrote:

> In other words, you believe that these are purely random acts without any
> purpose, and that, for some reason, there are significant number of
> mentally ill people willing to perform these acts?
>
> Your comments do a great disservice to all those in our own military who,
> facing impossible odds and/or realizing that they must sacrifice their
> lives for the benefit of their comrades in arms did not shrink from the
> task, but did so willingly. Surely, you aren't suggesting that these
> heroes were mentally ill, and that condition allowed them to lay down
> their lives for others? It seems to me that what we're talking about is a
> matter of perspective. It depends on where one stands and how one sees
> one's options that determine actions.
>

I hope you just misunderstood Jay's comments and are not really
confusing the acts of the terrorists with the acts of the U.S. Military.

Regardless of whether or not you consider strapping bombs on your own
children and sending them to blow up other children and their mothers is
rational, it *is* what terrorists do, not our military.

It has long since been obvious that the rational process of the
terrorist and the other 99.9% of the worlds population do not and will
not intersect.

Whether or not it is a matter of perspective as you suggest or mental
illness as Jay suggests no longer matters. The terrorist will not cease
killing until they are forced to.


A bit closer to the topic: CSI had an episode last night where a cargo
plane was brought down by a crackpot with a pocket pen laser. I'm not
sure what impressed me more: the lack of technical competence of the
writers regarding the laser episode itself or the computer reenactments
of the crash!

[Jay Honeck]

> I hope you just misunderstood Jay's comments and are not really
> confusing the acts of the terrorists with the acts of the U.S.
Military.

I fear that's precisely what Neil -- and millions of people just like
him -- are doing.

I actually find that fact scarier than any terrorist threat, simply
because it means the danger is truly from within, where it's much
harder to combat.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[AES]

In article >,
Doug Carter > wrote:

>
> I hope you just misunderstood Jay's comments and are not really
> confusing the acts of the terrorists with the acts of the U.S. Military.
>
> Regardless of whether or not you consider strapping bombs on your own
> children and sending them to blow up other children and their mothers is
> rational, it *is* what terrorists do, not our military.
>
> It has long since been obvious that the rational process of the
> terrorist and the other 99.9% of the worlds population do not and will
> not intersect.
>
> Whether or not it is a matter of perspective as you suggest or mental
> illness as Jay suggests no longer matters. The terrorist will not cease
> killing until they are forced to.
>

Though I've crossed keyboards with Jay Honeck on some earlier topics, I
want to associate myself with him and/or with this interpretation of his
comments.

The terrorists we're facing have done the fanatical and very evil things
they've done (and continue to do) primarily because they're fanatics,
with a fanatic and evil understanding of the world and fanatic and evil
religious beliefs, and *not* primarily because of any actions or
policies of the U.S. -- and even as a liberal and blue State resident, I
continue to be dismayed at those among my fellow liberals who foolishly
continue to assert the latter view.

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Doug Carter > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> In other words, you believe that these are purely random acts
>> without any purpose, and that, for some reason, there are
>> significant number of mentally ill people willing to perform these
>> acts?
>>
>> Your comments do a great disservice to all those in our own military
>> who, facing impossible odds and/or realizing that they must
>> sacrifice their lives for the benefit of their comrades in arms did
>> not shrink from the task, but did so willingly. Surely, you aren't
>> suggesting that these heroes were mentally ill, and that condition
>> allowed them to lay down their lives for others? It seems to me that
>> what we're talking about is a matter of perspective. It depends on
>> where one stands and how one sees one's options that determine
>> actions.
>>
>
> I hope you just misunderstood Jay's comments and are not really
> confusing the acts of the terrorists with the acts of the U.S.
> Military.
>
> Regardless of whether or not you consider strapping bombs on your own
> children and sending them to blow up other children and their mothers
> is rational, it *is* what terrorists do, not our military.
>
I'm not confusing the acts, I'm comparing and contrasting them. Are you
aware, for example, that some members of our military had the
responsibility for carrying backpack nuclear weapons? What do you think
the consequences for those individuals would be, had they been used? I
readily accept that the act of war itself is irrational, and all that
implies. But, I'm not under the illusion that we would not choose the very
same actions that "terrorists" use if we believed that they were our only
option.

> It has long since been obvious that the rational process of the
> terrorist and the other 99.9% of the worlds population do not and will
> not intersect.
>
Agreed.

> Whether or not it is a matter of perspective as you suggest or mental
> illness as Jay suggests no longer matters.
>
A lot depends on the definition of "terrorist", no? I believe that we have
to stop using buzzwords and start looking at behaviors. On one hand, we
readily live with "terrorist behaviors" on our own soil, they just don't
involve individuals blowing *themselves* up. Is that a distinction worth
making? I don't think so, but apparently most of us do.

>The terrorist will not cease killing until they are forced to.
>
No... *murderers* will not cease killing until they are forced to. People
that kill for a purpose will presumably stop once the purpose is served.
Or, at least that's the justification we're given for getting into wars.

Regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Jay Honeck > posted:

>> I hope you just misunderstood Jay's comments and are not really
>> confusing the acts of the terrorists with the acts of the U.S.
>> Military.
>
> I fear that's precisely what Neil -- and millions of people just like
> him -- are doing.
>
Well, I disagree, of course. ;-)

> I actually find that fact scarier than any terrorist threat, simply
> because it means the danger is truly from within, where it's much
> harder to combat.
>
The "fact" is that we have to stop acting scared and deal the terrorist
issue directly. It's naive to think that the attacks on us were random
acts by mentally ill individuals, particularly since the same targets were
hit more than once. "They" told us what their issues with us are, yet we
prefer to think that they don't really mean it. It's pretty clear that we
*still* don't "get it", particularly if you believe that the "danger"
comes from those of us that are trying to get a handle on an effective
approach to dealing with "them". It's pretty clear that attacking Iraq
wasn't the effective approach we needed... did it make you feel safer? Not
me.

Best regards,

Neil

[Casey Wilson]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
m...

> I'm not confusing the acts, I'm comparing and contrasting them. Are you
> aware, for example, that some members of our military had the
> responsibility for carrying backpack nuclear weapons?

Where can I find more information about back-pack nukes? Please cite
a source.

[Doug Carter]

Neil Gould wrote:

> I'm not confusing the acts, I'm comparing and contrasting them.

Why? Do you also find it useful to compare and contrast the acts of
serial killers and the police? Terrorists (and I do not shrink from
that term) are a mortal threat to global society, outlaws by any measure
and simply must be stopped by any means, within international law,
necessary.

>But, I'm not under the illusion that we would not choose the very
> same actions that "terrorists" use if we believed that they were our only
> option.

It has never been the policy of the United States to strap bombs to
retarded children and send them into civilian cafes nor take civilian
hostages and cut their throats on television. However these are the
official policies of the organizations on the US and international
terrorist lists.

> A lot depends on the definition of "terrorist", no?
Do you struggle with the term "illegal alien" as well? Glossing over
terms doesn't change the underlying reality.

> No... *murderers* will not cease killing until they are forced to. People
> that kill for a purpose will presumably stop once the purpose is served.
I suppose... but...no; I'm not ready to convert to Islam and give up my
liberty and property to dictators. I prefer to depend on our military
and homeland defense to keep the jackals at bay until the democratic
movements in the Mideast bring about their ultimate defeat.

[Larry Dighera]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:51:35 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> wrote in
>::

>"They" told us what their issues with us are, yet we
>prefer to think that they don't really mean it.

I don't recall hearing what those issues were/are. Can you state a
few of them?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Casey Wilson <N2310D @ gmail.com> posted:

> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
> m...
>
>> I'm not confusing the acts, I'm comparing and contrasting them. Are
>> you aware, for example, that some members of our military had the
>> responsibility for carrying backpack nuclear weapons?
>
> Where can I find more information about back-pack nukes?
> Please cite a source.
>
If you're really curious, do your own homework. I have.

You can start with a Google search on the term "backpack nuke" which will
turn up over 26,000 hits, many of which are relevant to the comment that I
made.

Regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Doug Carter > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> I'm not confusing the acts, I'm comparing and contrasting them.
>
> Why? Do you also find it useful to compare and contrast the acts of
> serial killers and the police?
>
If trying to profile serial killers or police, then yes. Unless you are
very young (or have not been paying attention), you would be able to
recall more than a few instances where police *did* participate in
terrorist activities in this country. That does not mean that one should
fear all police as terrorists, nor start attacking police stations because
that's where police hang out. It's that irrational fear factor that I have
a problem with.

> Terrorists (and I do not shrink from
> that term) are a mortal threat to global society, outlaws by any
> measure and simply must be stopped by any means, within international
> law, necessary.
>
Well. Here we have a problem, don't we? Just how does our attacking Iraq
fit into your scenario, above?

>> But, I'm not under the illusion that we would not choose the very
>> same actions that "terrorists" use if we believed that they were our
>> only option.
>
> It has never been the policy of the United States to strap bombs to
> retarded children and send them into civilian cafes nor take civilian
> hostages and cut their throats on television. However these are the
> official policies of the organizations on the US and international
> terrorist lists.
>
I don't recall Iran or North Korea doing any of those things. Can you cite
some examples?

>> No... *murderers* will not cease killing until they are forced to.
>> People that kill for a purpose will presumably stop once the purpose
>> is served.
>
> I suppose... but...no; I'm not ready to convert to Islam and give up
> my liberty and property to dictators.
>
I fail to see the relevance of this, or why you think it would be
necessary.

Regards,

Neil

[Doug Carter]

Neil Gould wrote:

> ...more than a few instances where police *did* participate in
> terrorist activities in this country...

Your kidding, right? Otherwise please provide links to accounts of U.S.
police officers for strapping bombs to their children and sending them
into cafes to murder random civilians.

>>Terrorists (and I do not shrink from
>>that term) are a mortal threat to global society, outlaws by any
>>measure and simply must be stopped by any means, within international
>>law, necessary.
>>
>
> Well. Here we have a problem, don't we? Just how does our attacking Iraq
> fit into your scenario, above?
>

Saddam's direct contribution of funding to terrorist operations around
the world made Bin Ladin's look like petty cash.

Saddams successful bribery of UN, French and German, officials succeeded
in stifling the enforcement of numerous UN resolutions that attempted to
stop his terrorist activities at home and around the world.

Putting a halt to the mass murder of civilians in Iraq.

The creation of a tipping point to create an environment favorable to
democracy in the Mideast.

Enticing various terrorist organizations to expend their efforts in Iraq
instead of Chicago or Ohio.

>>>No... *murderers* will not cease killing until they are forced to.
>>>People that kill for a purpose will presumably stop once the purpose
>>>is served.
>>
>>I suppose... but...no; I'm not ready to convert to Islam and give up
>>my liberty and property to dictators.
>>
>
> I fail to see the relevance of this, or why you think it would be
> necessary.

Satisfaction of the stated goals of the high profile Islamic terrorist
organizations. Again, your kidding, right?

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Larry Dighera > posted:

> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 22:51:35 GMT, "Neil Gould"
> > wrote in
>
>> "They" told us what their issues with us are, yet we
>> prefer to think that they don't really mean it.
>
> I don't recall hearing what those issues were/are. Can you state a
> few of them?
>
Recall the message from O. Bin Laden around the time of our election? He
stated that our support of Isreal at the expense of the Palestinians was a
problem, for one thing. Over the last few years, even prior to 9/11, we
have been confronted over our involvement in Afghanistan (where we gave
Bin Laden his training and support to fight the Russians, then left him
holding the bag afterwards), the deposing of the elected government of
Iran and the subsequent installation of the Shah, and so forth. Surely,
you've heard these comments, and they've been cited more than once?

Regards,

Neil

[Neil Gould]

Recently, Doug Carter > posted:

> Neil Gould wrote:
>
>> ...more than a few instances where police *did* participate in
>> terrorist activities in this country...
>
> Your kidding, right? Otherwise please provide links to accounts of
> U.S. police officers for strapping bombs to their children and
> sending them into cafes to murder random civilians.
>
Are those the only acts that define terrorism to you? If so, then I guess
flying aircraft into buildings also don't count. As far as I'm concerned,
taking innocent civilians out and murdering them by shooting, hanging,
etc. are acts of terror, and I don't see it as a matter for kidding. If
you are unaware that these events occurred, or don't see them as acts of
terror, it may be one reason why we're struggling over a solution to our
current situation.

>>> I suppose... but...no; I'm not ready to convert to Islam and give up
>>> my liberty and property to dictators.
>>>
>>
>> I fail to see the relevance of this, or why you think it would be
>> necessary.
>
> Satisfaction of the stated goals of the high profile Islamic terrorist
> organizations. Again, your kidding, right?
>
I haven't heard of any Islamic organizations suggesting that you convert
to Islam or give up your property to dictators. Got any references?

Regards,

Neil

[Matt Barrow]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> > I hope you just misunderstood Jay's comments and are not really
> > confusing the acts of the terrorists with the acts of the U.S.
> Military.
>
> I fear that's precisely what Neil -- and millions of people just like
> him -- are doing.
>
> I actually find that fact scarier than any terrorist threat, simply
> because it means the danger is truly from within, where it's much
> harder to combat.

It's not only from "within", but it's "between the ears", the inability to
_sort things out_. That part is dominant in much of the worlds culture and
that take _generations_ to correct.


Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Doug Carter]

Neil Gould wrote:
> Recently, Doug Carter > posted:
>
>
>>Neil Gould wrote:
>>
>>
>>>...more than a few instances where police *did* participate in
>>>terrorist activities in this country...
>>
>>Your kidding, right? Otherwise please provide links to accounts of
>>U.S. police officers for strapping bombs to their children and
>>sending them into cafes to murder random civilians.
>>
>
> Are those the only acts that define terrorism to you?

OK, you have no references :(

> I haven't heard of any Islamic organizations suggesting that you convert
> to Islam or give up your property to dictators. Got any references?

But you require them :)

At this point I really can't tell whether you are suffering from a
Barking Moonbat level infection of moral relativism, completely unable
to resolve good from bad or simply trolling.

Either way, regardless of tireless postings on this Usenet, the die is
cast. OBL sealed the fate of the terrorist movements with his tactical
error on 9/11.

Cheers!

[Matt Barrow]

"Doug Carter" > wrote in message
...
> Neil Gould wrote:
>
> > ...more than a few instances where police *did* participate in
> > terrorist activities in this country...
>
> Your kidding, right? Otherwise please provide links to accounts of U.S.
> police officers for strapping bombs to their children and sending them
> into cafes to murder random civilians.

Forget it! Neil is heavily imbued with post-modernist relativism and that is
barely short of mental illness, the same mental illness the terrorist suffer
from.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Casey Wilson]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
...
> Recently, Casey Wilson <N2310D @ gmail.com> posted:
>
>> "Neil Gould" > wrote in message
>> m...
>>
>>> I'm not confusing the acts, I'm comparing and contrasting them. Are
>>> you aware, for example, that some members of our military had the
>>> responsibility for carrying backpack nuclear weapons?
>>
>> Where can I find more information about back-pack nukes?
>> Please cite a source.
>>
> If you're really curious, do your own homework. I have.
>
> You can start with a Google search on the term "backpack nuke" which will
> turn up over 26,000 hits, many of which are relevant to the comment that I
> made.
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil

I was hoping for a credible citation, not the equivalent of The
National Enquirer, or Joe Blow's Blog. Perhaps an organization such as the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Since you have apparently done your
'homework,' perhaps you might tell us what the yeild of the backpack device
is -- specifically the one toted around by our military.
I did lots of homework, and OJT, with the Atomic Energy Commission and
later the Department of Energy when I worked at a place called the Nevada
Test Site. Check it out at http://www.nv.doe.gov/nts/default.htm
Your are the one that made the rash statement. If you want to maintain
your credibility, put up the proof. I say you are wrong and it is not up to
me to prove you right.

Regards,

Casey Wilson

[Dave Stadt]

"Neil Gould" > wrote in message
om...
> > I haven't heard of any Islamic organizations suggesting that you convert
> to Islam or give up your property to dictators. Got any references?
>
> Regards,
>
> Neil

You are right Neil they don't want us to do any of those things. They
simply want us all dead.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 01:26:24 GMT, Doug Carter >
wrote in >::

>The creation of a tipping point to create an environment favorable to
>democracy in the Mideast.

You haven't been keeping abreast of the developments in Iraq. It
looks as though the Iraqis have chosen theocracy over democracy. If
so, this places the American people in the unexpected position of
supporting Islam!

[Corky Scott]

On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:14:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> wrote:

>Face facts: People who blow themselves up on a crowded school bus full of
>kids are not rational beings. If they were, they would be working to make
>the electoral process in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever) work
>better -- or any of a thousand other positive, constructive acts -- rather
>than killing innocents.
>
>To glorify their "cause" by analyzing their motives plays directly into
>their hand. They do not deserve such an honor.

There's a word that describes this kind of thinking Jay, it's called
"Ethnocentrism". It's literal defination is: "thinking one's own
group's ways are superior to others" or "judging other groups as
inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers to cultural heritage, and
"centrism" refers to the central starting point... so "ethnocentrism"
basically refers to judging other groups from our own cultural point
of view. An example of this might be to view native life in interior
New Guinea or the jungles of the upper Amazon river as being backward
and deprived. It only seems that way to the "civilized" observer
based on his/her cultural upbringing. The natives, without
intervention from civilization, think their lives are just fine
thanks.

The same thing could be said when studying suicide bombers. To them
and their culture, they are definately not irrational nor is every
single one of the mentally ill. In fact none who have been captured
alive (prior to bombing or when a bomb failed to detonate of course)
and interviewed by psychiatrists have been diagnosed that way.

You may think that people who blow themselves up to be irrational or
mentally ill, but can it really be mental illness if it continues to
occur year after year and has the support not only of the culture but
of the very families of the dead bombers in some cases? That's one
hell of a mental illness, and it lately only seems to be afflicting
those of Islamic upbringing. That would be a pretty peculiar mental
illness if true. During WWII, the Japanese turned suicide bombing
into an extremely effective military weapon. None of those who flew
against the Navy are now considered mentally ill although the
terrified sailers shooting for their very lives may have thought so.
The Germans actually recruited fighter pilots in a suicide squadron
towards the end of the war. Note: Two sentences that mention
aviation. ;-)

There are many reasons Bin laden and other middle eastern groups have
been attacking the US, Isreal and any enemy they percieve, none of
them start with mental illness. They are deeply rooted in religious
fundamentalism. To me, religious fundamentalism is the One True Evil
in the world.

Corky Scott

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:12:12 -0500, Corky Scott
> wrote in
>::

>To me, religious fundamentalism is the One True Evil
>in the world.

I have heard it said, that religion is the gateway to mental illness.
:-)

[AES]

In article >,
Corky Scott > wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Mar 2005 14:14:44 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
> > wrote:
>
> >Face facts: People who blow themselves up on a crowded school bus full of
> >kids are not rational beings. If they were, they would be working to make
> >the electoral process in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever) work
> >better -- or any of a thousand other positive, constructive acts -- rather
> >than killing innocents.
> >
> >To glorify their "cause" by analyzing their motives plays directly into
> >their hand. They do not deserve such an honor.
>
> There's a word that describes this kind of thinking Jay, it's called
> "Ethnocentrism". It's literal defination is: "thinking one's own
> group's ways are superior to others"

Well, speaking for myself, while I think people are basically the same
the world around, I do definitely think certain cultures are very much
superior to others -- and judging by the final sentence of your full
message (below), you believe similarly. You may want to label this as
"Ethnocentrism" though I'd probably avoid that term myself and try
instead to give a more nuanced and detailed description of what I
actually believe, since I think that term has acquired perjorative
connotations and is used more for derogatory than for descriptive
purposes.

In any case, the issue here is more the semantics of the term mental
illness -- and despite the attempts of professional psychologists or
psychiatrists to provide formal definitions of this term, really useful
or widely accepted operational definitions of the term are lacking, and
probably impossible to obtain.

I've had some encounters with clearly mentally ill people, up close and
personal, in various different situations, and it would be my opinion
that there is at least some significant correlation between excessive
religious fundamentalism (or excessive student radicalism, or far right
political conservatism) and mental illness -- but the correlation is far
from 100%.

That said, I'd accept the rest of your message -- except that trying to
subsume views of native cultures and fundamentalist suicide bombers
under a single term doesn't seem to me to help foster clear thinking
about either case.

> or "judging other groups as
> inferior to one's own". "Ethnic" refers to cultural heritage, and
> "centrism" refers to the central starting point... so "ethnocentrism"
> basically refers to judging other groups from our own cultural point
> of view. An example of this might be to view native life in interior
> New Guinea or the jungles of the upper Amazon river as being backward
> and deprived. It only seems that way to the "civilized" observer
> based on his/her cultural upbringing. The natives, without
> intervention from civilization, think their lives are just fine
> thanks.
>
> The same thing could be said when studying suicide bombers. To them
> and their culture, they are definately not irrational nor is every
> single one of the mentally ill. In fact none who have been captured
> alive (prior to bombing or when a bomb failed to detonate of course)
> and interviewed by psychiatrists have been diagnosed that way.
>
> You may think that people who blow themselves up to be irrational or
> mentally ill, but can it really be mental illness if it continues to
> occur year after year and has the support not only of the culture but
> of the very families of the dead bombers in some cases? That's one
> hell of a mental illness, and it lately only seems to be afflicting
> those of Islamic upbringing. That would be a pretty peculiar mental
> illness if true. During WWII, the Japanese turned suicide bombing
> into an extremely effective military weapon. None of those who flew
> against the Navy are now considered mentally ill although the
> terrified sailers shooting for their very lives may have thought so.
> The Germans actually recruited fighter pilots in a suicide squadron
> towards the end of the war. Note: Two sentences that mention
> aviation. ;-)
>
> There are many reasons Bin laden and other middle eastern groups have
> been attacking the US, Isreal and any enemy they percieve, none of
> them start with mental illness. They are deeply rooted in religious
> fundamentalism. To me, religious fundamentalism is the One True Evil
> in the world.
>
> Corky Scott

[AES]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:12:12 -0500, Corky Scott
> > wrote in
> >::
>
> >To me, religious fundamentalism is the One True Evil
> >in the world.
>
> I have heard it said, that religion is the gateway to mental illness.
> :-)

Great post! You said more in a dozen words than I said in ten times
that number.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:08:10 -0800, AES > wrote:

>it would be my opinion
>that there is at least some significant correlation between excessive
>religious fundamentalism (or excessive student radicalism, or far right
>political conservatism) and mental illness -- but the correlation is far
>from 100%.

Uh oh. INCOMING, HIT THE DIRT!!

Not from me though. I've long thought the extreme forms of religion
to be very like mental illness. Ever been to a tent revival meeting?
You get to see people writhing on the ground and speaking in "tongues"
that no one on earth will recognize. What's going on with THAT?

They aren't called "the holy rollers" for nothing. And yet that's
considered perfectly acceptible behavior by those who practice such
faiths. Hmmm, hope such visitations don't occur while driving or
flying ... crash city.

Corky Scott

[Dave Butler]

Corky Scott wrote:
> To me, religious fundamentalism is the One True Evil
> in the world.

That's the big one, and right behind it is nationalism a.k.a. patriotism.

[George Patterson]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> You get to see people writhing on the ground and speaking in "tongues"
> that no one on earth will recognize. What's going on with THAT?

Bears a strong resemblance to grand mal epilepsy, but epileptics don't usually
vocalize during their fits. I've known epileptics that could go into siezure at
will. Perhaps this is the same sort of thing.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 19:10:42 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>I've known epileptics that could go into siezure at
>will. Perhaps this is the same sort of thing.

Sure is, The Holy Church of the Seizures of the Lord... amen brother.

Corky Scott

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote in
t>::

>
>> Why do you think he's wacky?
>>
>
>Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.

Given the content of these articles:


http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-churchill9mar09,1,3617513.story
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/biographies/eichmann.htm

You may be correct.

[Larry Dighera]

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:09:34 -0800, AES > wrote
in >::

>In article >,
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 09:12:12 -0500, Corky Scott
>> > wrote in
>> >::
>>
>> >To me, religious fundamentalism is the One True Evil
>> >in the world.
>>
>> I have heard it said, that religion is the gateway to mental illness.
>> :-)
>
>Great post!

Thanks.

>You said more in a dozen words than I said in ten times
>that number.

I heard it from Bill Maher, Real Time, HBO.

[Frank]

Jay Honeck wrote:

>> What motivates people to attack others, sacrificing their lives in the
>> process? Does that not seem like an act of ultimate desparation, borne
>> out of frustration and a sense that there is nothing more to lose?
>
> Actually, it is a sign of mental illness.
>
> I'm eternally amazed that there are people trying to analyze brutal acts
> of terror, as if there is some root cause that "we" (whoever "we" are) can
> address.
>
> Face facts: People who blow themselves up on a crowded school bus full of
> kids are not rational beings. If they were, they would be working to make
> the electoral process in Iraq (or Afghanistan, or Iran, or wherever) work
> better -- or any of a thousand other positive, constructive acts -- rather
> than killing innocents.
>
> To glorify their "cause" by analyzing their motives plays directly into
> their hand. They do not deserve such an honor.

One does not glorify or honor anyone by analyzing them. And in the case of
terrorism, the penalty for not attempting to understand is more terrorism.
Attempting to obtain a glimmer of understanding of what motivates someone
else does not imply support for the actions.

The current crop of terrorists, usually defined as radical fundamentalist
Islamic youths, are certainly 'mentally ill' when measured by the standards
that apply on Main street USA.

Young men do not willingly commit suicide when life is good and/or there is
hope for the future. But it is easy to see that a 17 year old in Palestine
or Iraq can readily be convinced that there is neither. They know nothing
but poverty and oppression. Their education, if they have any, comes from
fundamentalist run schools that certainly don't spend any time expanding
their ability to think for themselves.

The issue of terrorism is a complex one. There are some aspects we have
control over and some we do not. Trying to simplify it by trivializing the
enemy removes one area we do have some control over and so hurts our cause.

--
Frank....H

[AES]

In article >,
Larry Dighera > wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:11:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote in
> t>::
>
> >
> >> Why do you think he's wacky?
> >>
> >
> >Because his words and actions fit any reasonable definition of wacky.
>
> Given the content of these articles:
>
>
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-churchill9mar09,1,3617513.story

For me the most important and most telling questions from the beginning
have been not revolved around whether Churchill was wacky or not, but
rather about what we're to think about the intellectual caliber or
intellectual stature of a field of study -- Ethnic Studies -- in which
someone like Churchill can become not merely a tenured professor but a
department chair?!?

(Not to mention the intellectual standards of a university in which this
can happen . . . )

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:19:20 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote
>
>> I think the Air Force probably has a good idea for the use of lasers
>> in alerting pilots. I think the Secretary of Transportation's
>> statement stems more from a hysterical siege-mentality than rational
>> thought.
>>
> I gotta agree. The point of safety , IMHO, comes more with the fast few
>blinks of laser, vs extended blinding by Joe Q. public.


It looks like the AOPA is attempting to assist the USAF with this:


-------------------------------------------------------------
AOPA ePilot Volume 7, Issue 11 March 18, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
AIR FORCE URGED TO WORK WITH AOPA ON LASER WARNING SYSTEM
When the House aviation subcommittee met Tuesday to discuss the
hazards posed by civilian ground-based lasers aimed at pilots, talk
quickly turned to an Air Force plan to use lasers to signal aircraft
that stray too close to the no-fly zone around Washington, D.C. While
the Air Force claims its laser system is safe, not everyone is so
sure. Rep. Robin Hayes (R-N.C.), an AOPA member, expressed concern
that tests of the lasers had only been conducted on pressurized
aircraft--not smaller GA aircraft with thinner windscreens. He urged
the Air Force to work with AOPA to develop and test the system on more
typical GA aircraft. Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa), also an AOPA
member, was the first to raise the issue of how lasers could affect GA
pilots. He said that he had been thinking about how distracting it
would be to try to land his own aircraft with a laser in his eyes. See
AOPA Online
(http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsitems/2005/050315laser.html ).