Fox News on Terrorism

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Simon R. Hughes

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 7:12:18 AM2/26/04
to
"How to Reduce Chances of Being a Terror Victim"

<http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92855,00.html>

By #25, they've pretty-much given up on the possibility of our
escaping:

"25. Make out a will and letter of instruction in case you die.
Get fingerprinted, get your blood samples and obtain dental
X-rays so your body can be identified in case you fall victim to
attack."


--
Simon R. Hughes
I'm doing my bit:
<http://www.cia.gov/cia/english_rewards.htm>

Sam Nelson

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 7:44:28 AM2/26/04
to
In article <3gxfhqgg3n9a$.1jrwg4un...@40tude.net>,

"Simon R. Hughes" <a57998.no...@yahoo.no> writes:
> "How to Reduce Chances of Being a Terror Victim"
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92855,00.html>
>
> By #25, they've pretty-much given up on the possibility of our
> escaping:
>
> "25. Make out a will and letter of instruction in case you die.
> Get fingerprinted, get your blood samples and obtain dental
> X-rays so your body can be identified in case you fall victim to
> attack."

That all looks remarkably like `#0: change your lifestyle substantially so
that the terrorists can claim to have defeated your entire culture'.
--
SAm.

John Dean

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 8:01:27 AM2/26/04
to
Simon R. Hughes wrote:
> "How to Reduce Chances of Being a Terror Victim"
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92855,00.html>
>
> By #25, they've pretty-much given up on the possibility of our
> escaping:
>
> "25. Make out a will and letter of instruction in case you die.
> Get fingerprinted, get your blood samples and obtain dental
> X-rays so your body can be identified in case you fall victim to
> attack."

I also like

''9. Try to fly on wide-body planes; terrorists often avoid hijacking them.
''

In my experience, terrorists often avoid many things. They often avoid
creeping into my house and stealing cat poo from our litter trays. In fact,
they *always* avoid that.

''12. When in a foreign country, don't advertise that you're American by
speaking loudly, holding up maps, exchanging currency at airports, showing
American flags, etc. ''

Arf


--
John Dean
Oxford

Armond Perretta

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 8:31:54 AM2/26/04
to
John Dean wrote:
>
> ''12. When in a foreign country, don't advertise that you're
> American by speaking loudly, holding up maps, exchanging currency
> at airports, showing American flags, etc. ''

I have laid in a supply of Swiss and Canadian flags, but I'm still a bit
nervous.

BTW, I've heard it said in certain (Administration) circles that the
"terraced" have won if they succeed in having Americans "change our
lifestyle." I was thinking about this while reading the Sunday NYT article
describing security measures being applied to buildings and monuments
Washington DC. It seems that these days it is almost impossible to even
visit many of these Security-related construction is expected to continue
for many years and consume quite a bit of money.

So have the "terraced" won?


--
Good luck and good sailing.
s/v Kerry Deare of Barnegat
http://kerrydeare.home.comcast.net/


Ross Howard

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 8:45:40 AM2/26/04
to
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:01:27 -0000, "John Dean"
<john...@frag.lineone.net> wrought:

And this one, presumably targeted at those prone to being shit-scared:

"8. When flying, wear comfortable clothing and shoes in case
you need to quickly evacuate."

ObAUE: Evacuate what or whom? When I were a lad, evacuate was a
transitive verb, most commnly heard in parents talking about when they
were evacuated, i.e. it was the authorities, not kids in inner cities,
who did the evacuating).

I'll doubtless now get reams of "v.intr." dic cites for "evacuate",
which is fine, if that's what gets people's rocks off. Although, wait
-- best avoid rocks. Terrorists are known to cob them at the
democratic forces of law and order in the free world.>

--
Ross Howard

Michael West

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 8:47:24 AM2/26/04
to
Armond Perretta wrote:

> BTW, I've heard it said in certain (Administration) circles that the
> "terraced" have won if they succeed in having Americans "change our
> lifestyle." I was thinking about this while reading the Sunday NYT
> article describing security measures being applied to buildings and
> monuments Washington DC. It seems that these days it is almost
> impossible to even visit many of these Security-related
> construction is expected to continue for many years and consume quite
> a bit of money.
>
> So have the "terraced" won?

To the extent that they've interfered with our
freedom, they have. I don't think they've yet
killed enough of us to have "succeeded" in their
own estimation, but they certainly must sense
that they're on the right track.
--
Michael West


Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany >

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 9:01:18 AM2/26/04
to
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 08:31:54 -0500, the renowned "Armond Perretta"
<newsgro...@REMOVEcomcast.net> wrote:

>John Dean wrote:
>>
>> ''12. When in a foreign country, don't advertise that you're
>> American by speaking loudly, holding up maps, exchanging currency
>> at airports, showing American flags, etc. ''
>
>I have laid in a supply of Swiss and Canadian flags, but I'm still a bit
>nervous.

The chances you'll actually be killed by a disgruntled foreigner are
much less than the chances you'll die in a traffic accident. All of
9/11 added up to only a few weeks of US traffic deaths, and
third-world countries are much worse safety-wise. Of course, if you're
into trekking in the beautiful mountains of Pakistan or Iran, that
general comment may not hold true.

>BTW, I've heard it said in certain (Administration) circles that the
>"terraced" have won if they succeed in having Americans "change our
>lifestyle." I was thinking about this while reading the Sunday NYT article
>describing security measures being applied to buildings and monuments
>Washington DC. It seems that these days it is almost impossible to even
>visit many of these Security-related construction is expected to continue
>for many years and consume quite a bit of money.
>
>So have the "terraced" won?

No, because they don't really give a rat's ass about American
lifestyles. They will have achieved their stated goals when and if US
foreign policy shifts to being less destructive to their interests. As
long as Americans buy the line that others using asymmetric warfare
techniques "hate freedom" or other similar claptrap, there won't be
much pressure from the electorate to do so. I suggest buying
security-related stocks on the dips and moving away from the USD, as
there will be much money to be made.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

Robert Lipton

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 9:14:16 AM2/26/04
to

Spehro Pefhany


Now that's interesting . I have been buying foreign-based hard asset
stocks -- Broken Hills Proprietary-Billiton, for example, on the grounds
that the USD is being inflated. But what sort of security companies?
Tyco to pick up the buzz from ADT?

Bob

Michael West

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 9:34:21 AM2/26/04
to
"Spehro Pefhany wrote

[Re: terrorists]


> No, because they don't really give a rat's ass about American
> lifestyles. They will have achieved their stated goals when and if US
> foreign policy shifts to being less destructive to their interests.

Which foreign policy statements are you referring to? The ones
that call for the annihilation of The US and Israel and the slaughter
of Westerners? Which "interests" of Bin Laden's should we be
concerned about"?

> As
> long as Americans buy the line that others using asymmetric warfare
> techniques

Flying airliners into office buildings?

> "hate freedom" or other similar claptrap, there won't be
> much pressure from the electorate to do so.

So they're just a bunch of freedom-loving, assymetric type guys?
Who knew?
--
Michael West


Martin Ambuhl

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 10:25:20 AM2/26/04
to
Michael West wrote:
> "Spehro Pefhany wrote

>>As
>>long as Americans buy the line that others using asymmetric warfare
>>techniques

> Flying airliners into office buildings?

>>"hate freedom" or other similar claptrap, there won't be
>>much pressure from the electorate to do so.

> So they're just a bunch of freedom-loving, assymetric type guys?
> Who knew?

So you're back into the "if you won't buy my bullshit then you must buy
this other bullshit I made up" argument style. Not only is this a bogus
"with me/against me" style, it's one in which you get to decide what
people who disagree with you think. Grow up.

Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany >

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 10:29:53 AM2/26/04
to
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:34:21 GMT, the renowned "Michael West"
<mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:

>"Spehro Pefhany wrote
>
>[Re: terrorists]
>> No, because they don't really give a rat's ass about American
>> lifestyles. They will have achieved their stated goals when and if US
>> foreign policy shifts to being less destructive to their interests.
>
>Which foreign policy statements are you referring to? The ones
>that call for the annihilation of The US and Israel and the slaughter
>of Westerners?

Bin Laden said he wants to "annhilate" the US? What he said was more
like "America will never dream of security" until "the infidels'
armies leave the land of Muhammad."

>Which "interests" of Bin Laden's should we be
>concerned about"?

No real necessity to be concerned at all- they can't really hurt the
US much directly. If the cost (and benefits, as there are benefits) of
security precautions and the odd incident are less than the resulting
economic benefit of current policies, why change? Who cares even if al
Qaeda are perceived as having the high moral ground by others in the
region?

>> As
>> long as Americans buy the line that others using asymmetric warfare
>> techniques
>
>Flying airliners into office buildings?

It's one technique of fighting an infinitely more powerful enemy, and
it likely won't ever work again.

>> "hate freedom" or other similar claptrap, there won't be
>> much pressure from the electorate to do so.
>
>So they're just a bunch of freedom-loving, assymetric type guys?
>Who knew?

A pretty fair description, from their point of view, which in no way
diminishes the desirability from our point of view of killing them,
and particularly the ones with blood on their hands. But more will
come if the fundamentals are not dealt with.

John Dean

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 10:48:10 AM2/26/04
to
Armond Perretta wrote:
> John Dean wrote:
>>
>> ''12. When in a foreign country, don't advertise that you're
>> American by speaking loudly, holding up maps, exchanging currency
>> at airports, showing American flags, etc. ''
>
> I have laid in a supply of Swiss and Canadian flags, but I'm still a
> bit nervous.
>
> BTW, I've heard it said in certain (Administration) circles that the
> "terraced" have won if they succeed in having Americans "change our
> lifestyle." I was thinking about this while reading the Sunday NYT
> article describing security measures being applied to buildings and
> monuments Washington DC. It seems that these days it is almost
> impossible to even visit many of these Security-related
> construction is expected to continue for many years and consume quite
> a bit of money.
>
> So have the "terraced" won?

Tairists? Tearists? They win if they persuade democratic countries to elect
leaders whose behaviour will incline more people to support the tairst. So
we're safe as houses. They win if we start to adopt their tactics - taking
hostages and holding them for years for no good reason, relying on bullets
rather than ballots, appointing leaders by fiat not ballot, blowing up
buildings without much regard for who's inside them. That kind of stuff. So,
again, we're fine. Trrrrst support is ebbing away as we speak.
--
John Dean
Oxford


Mike Barnes

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 10:36:06 AM2/26/04
to
In alt.usage.english, Simon R. Hughes wrote:
>"How to Reduce Chances of Being a Terror Victim"

12. When in a foreign country, don't advertise that you're American
by speaking loudly, [...]

So, even the terrorism cloud has a silver lining.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 12:22:29 PM2/26/04
to
Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>> writes:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:34:21 GMT, the renowned "Michael West"
> <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Which foreign policy statements are you referring to? The ones
>>that call for the annihilation of The US and Israel and the slaughter
>>of Westerners?
>
> Bin Laden said he wants to "annhilate" the US? What he said was more
> like "America will never dream of security" until "the infidels'
> armies leave the land of Muhammad."

CBS news quotes him (8/20/02) as saying "They are awaiting that you
annihilate America and the Jews".

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/20/eveningnews/main519306.shtml

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden
(650)857-7572 |usurpations.
| James Madison
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany >

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 1:00:07 PM2/26/04
to
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:22:29 -0800, the renowned Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>> writes:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 14:34:21 GMT, the renowned "Michael West"
>> <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Which foreign policy statements are you referring to? The ones
>>>that call for the annihilation of The US and Israel and the slaughter
>>>of Westerners?
>>
>> Bin Laden said he wants to "annhilate" the US? What he said was more
>> like "America will never dream of security" until "the infidels'
>> armies leave the land of Muhammad."
>
>CBS news quotes him (8/20/02) as saying "They are awaiting that you
>annihilate America and the Jews".
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/20/eveningnews/main519306.shtml

It's so nice of them to summarize it for us. His fatwas that formally
declared war on the US (1996) and on US civilians (1998) don't have
any such thing that I can see (despite claims to the contrary in the
media) in what appear to be relatively complete translations that I
can find on the web.

http://www.geocities.com/dcjarviks//Idler/vIIIn165.html
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

Armond Perretta

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 1:05:25 PM2/26/04
to
John Dean wrote:
> Armond Perretta wrote:
>>
>> ... I've heard it said in certain (Administration) circles that

>> the "terraced" have won if they succeed in having Americans
>> "change our lifestyle." I was thinking about this while reading
>> the Sunday NYT article describing security measures being applied
>> to buildings and monuments Washington DC. It seems that these
>> days it is almost impossible to even visit many of these
>> Security-related construction is expected to continue for many
>> years and consume quite a bit of money.
>>
>> So have the "terraced" won?
>
> Tairists? Tearists? They win if they persuade democratic countries
> to elect leaders whose behaviour will incline more people to
> support the tairst. So we're safe as houses. They win if we start
> to adopt their tactics - taking hostages and holding them for years
> for no good reason, relying on bullets rather than ballots,
> appointing leaders by fiat not ballot, blowing up buildings without
> much regard for who's inside them. That kind of stuff. So, again,
> we're fine. Trrrrst support is ebbing away as we speak.

I'm still at the point of not being sure that an "election," as the word is
commonly understood, took place. Meanwhile there is little doubt in my mind
that the "terraced" industry is booming here in the USA. With cheerleaders
in high places, I won't have much trouble settling on an investment strategy
over the next few years. America isn't going out of business, but it's
definitely adopting a new business focus..

Or is it so new? During the last five decades we've "invested" in hundreds
of now-trashed technologies in the pursuit of security. It's hard for me to
know exactly how much security was actually provided, but it's pretty easy
to locate the junkpiles these efforts have become.

Disclaimer: I confess to having owned related securities at times.

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 1:25:23 PM2/26/04
to
Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>> writes:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 09:22:29 -0800, the renowned Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>>
>>writes:
>>

>>> Bin Laden said he wants to "annhilate" the US? What he said was
>>> more like "America will never dream of security" until "the
>>> infidels' armies leave the land of Muhammad."
>>
>>CBS news quotes him (8/20/02) as saying "They are awaiting that you
>>annihilate America and the Jews".
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/20/eveningnews/main519306.shtml
>
> It's so nice of them to summarize it for us. His fatwas that
> formally declared war on the US (1996) and on US civilians (1998)
> don't have any such thing that I can see (despite claims to the
> contrary in the media) in what appear to be relatively complete
> translations that I can find on the web.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/dcjarviks//Idler/vIIIn165.html
> http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/docs/980223-fatwa.htm

The quotes were from a CD found in Afghanistan in 2002. I saw nothing
in Michael West's post that implied that he was referring to the
fatwas. The tape in question is described as "aimed at recruiting
English-speakers" so I presume that the subtitles mentioned in the
article were, in fact, in English, so it isn't a case of questionable
American translation. If this is accurate, Bin Laden did indeed, in a
statement meant for public consumption, talk about "annihilating
America".

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


Mike Barnes

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 1:56:43 PM2/26/04
to

Not questionable translation *by* Americans, but perhaps questionable
translation *into* American. The news report mentions subtitles so it's
not completely clear that ObL actually spoke those words.

>If this is accurate, Bin Laden did indeed, in a
>statement meant for public consumption, talk about "annihilating
>America".

It's a marketing video.

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 2:11:41 PM2/26/04
to
Mike Barnes <februa...@mikebarnes.fsnet.co.uk> writes:

I'm sure he wrote the fatwa in Arabic, too. (Does he even speak
English?) If an organization puts out an "official" version of
something in English, and that English isn't obviously wrong, I don't
think you can sersiously criticize someone for reporting that that's
what was said.

>>If this is accurate, Bin Laden did indeed, in a statement meant for
>>public consumption, talk about "annihilating America".
>
> It's a marketing video.

I'll buy that.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |If we have to re-invent the wheel,
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |can we at least make it round this
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |time?

kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

The Grammer Genious

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 1:15:20 PM2/26/04
to
John Dean wrote:

> ''12. When in a foreign country, don't advertise that you're American by
> speaking loudly, holding up maps, exchanging currency at airports, showing
> American flags, etc. ''

Or you could wear one of these T-shirts:

http://www.cafeshops.com/americanapology/137430

Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany >

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 2:33:42 PM2/26/04
to
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:25:23 -0800, the renowned Evan Kirshenbaum
<kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:

>The quotes were from a CD found in Afghanistan in 2002. I saw nothing
>in Michael West's post that implied that he was referring to the
>fatwas.

Michael West referred to "foreign policy statements". That's exactly
what those fatwas are.

Here is a report from just prior to 9/11 that may or may not refer to
the same material (which may have been new to the CBS correspondent
Tom Fenton, but perhaps not actually new), including the "al-Farooq
camp" reference:

http://www.intellnet.org/news/2001/09/09/6500-1.html

A quote from that tape is: "Our brothers in Palestine are waiting for
you anxiously, and expect you to strike at America and Israel," Mr.
bin Laden says. "God's earth is wide and their interests are
everywhere." Could that be the same statement in Arabic?

>The tape in question is described as "aimed at recruiting
>English-speakers" so I presume that the subtitles mentioned in the
>article were, in fact, in English, so it isn't a case of questionable
>American translation. If this is accurate, Bin Laden did indeed, in a
>statement meant for public consumption, talk about "annihilating
>America".

Yes, that is logical, if it is an accurate quote, if it is a correct
translation from Arabic by whoever prepared it, and if it is in
context and not, say, merely referring to some kind of metaphorical
annihilation of America's will to continue along the same path. I'm
not convinced. He is clearly not a madman, and "annihilating" the US
in a literal sense is quite impossible.

Skitt

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 3:14:28 PM2/26/04
to
Ross Howard wrote:
> "John Dean" wrought:
>> Simon R. Hughes wrote:

>>> "How to Reduce Chances of Being a Terror Victim"
>>>
>>> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92855,00.html>

> And this one, presumably targeted at those prone to being shit-scared:


>
> "8. When flying, wear comfortable clothing and shoes in case
> you need to quickly evacuate."
>
> ObAUE: Evacuate what or whom? When I were a lad, evacuate was a
> transitive verb, most commnly heard in parents talking about when they
> were evacuated, i.e. it was the authorities, not kids in inner cities,
> who did the evacuating).
>
> I'll doubtless now get reams of "v.intr." dic cites for "evacuate",
> which is fine, if that's what gets people's rocks off. Although, wait
> -- best avoid rocks. Terrorists are known to cob them at the
> democratic forces of law and order in the free world.>

It's funny about the meanings of words and how the come and go.

There was an intransitive sense of "evacuate", meaning "to let blood" listed
as obsolete in the Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition.

Currently, M-W Online has:
intransitive senses
1 : to withdraw from a place in an organized way especially for protection
2 : to pass urine or feces from the body

That makes me think twice about #8, above. Actually, I did that before I
wrote all of this.
--
Skitt (in Hayward, California)
www.geocities.com/opus731/

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 3:12:02 PM2/26/04
to
Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany <spef...@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat>> writes:

> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:25:23 -0800, the renowned Evan Kirshenbaum
> <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>>The quotes were from a CD found in Afghanistan in 2002. I saw
>>nothing in Michael West's post that implied that he was referring to
>>the fatwas.
>
> Michael West referred to "foreign policy statements". That's exactly
> what those fatwas are.

They are, but they're not the only such statements.

> Here is a report from just prior to 9/11 that may or may not refer to
> the same material (which may have been new to the CBS correspondent
> Tom Fenton, but perhaps not actually new), including the "al-Farooq
> camp" reference:
>
> http://www.intellnet.org/news/2001/09/09/6500-1.html
>
> A quote from that tape is: "Our brothers in Palestine are waiting for
> you anxiously, and expect you to strike at America and Israel," Mr.
> bin Laden says. "God's earth is wide and their interests are
> everywhere." Could that be the same statement in Arabic?

Absolutely not. It might well, however, be a different translation of
the same Arabic statement into English. :-) On the other hand, that
page mentions neither English nor subtitles, and it has no mention of
being aimed at recruiting English-speaking allies, so I have my doubts
that it's the same one (although he might well use the same Arabic
phrase on multiple tapes). In fact the article says that the tape
"surfaced last June", which would have been 2000, while the one CBS
quoted was "uncovered in Afghanistan", presumably after the invasion
in late 2001 and probably close to the publishing of the article in
mid-2002.

>>The tape in question is described as "aimed at recruiting
>>English-speakers" so I presume that the subtitles mentioned in the
>>article were, in fact, in English, so it isn't a case of questionable
>>American translation. If this is accurate, Bin Laden did indeed, in a
>>statement meant for public consumption, talk about "annihilating
>>America".
>
> Yes, that is logical, if it is an accurate quote, if it is a correct
> translation from Arabic by whoever prepared it,

If it's a translation actually on the tape (in subtitles), I don't
think that it matters whether it's a correct translation. It becomes
an actual English-language statement by the organization. Presumably
if there are multiple ways to translate a statement, that's the one
they intend.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |When you rewrite a compiler from
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |scratch, you sometimes fix things
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |you didn't know were broken.
| Larry Wall
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/


david56

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 3:33:35 PM2/26/04
to
Simon R. Hughes typed thus:

> "How to Reduce Chances of Being a Terror Victim"
>
> <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92855,00.html>

8. When flying, wear comfortable clothing and shoes in case you need
to quickly evacuate.

This presumably has something to do with the size of airline
lavatories.

18. Never take the first taxicab in line; hail a moving cab instead.

Have you ever tried that at an airport?

16. Store a decent amount of cash someplace in case ATMs malfunction.
22. Only carry essential money cards and identification.

Hmmm. Some contradiction?

--
David
=====

Michael West

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 4:00:19 PM2/26/04
to


Which part of the above did I make up?
--
Michael West


John Dean

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 6:32:12 PM2/26/04
to
Armond Perretta wrote:
> John Dean wrote:
>> Armond Perretta wrote:
>>>
>>> ... I've heard it said in certain (Administration) circles that
>>> the "terraced" have won if they succeed in having Americans
>>> "change our lifestyle." I was thinking about this while reading
>>> the Sunday NYT article describing security measures being applied
>>> to buildings and monuments Washington DC. It seems that these
>>> days it is almost impossible to even visit many of these
>>> Security-related construction is expected to continue for many
>>> years and consume quite a bit of money.
>>>
>>> So have the "terraced" won?
>>
>> Tairists? Tearists? They win if they persuade democratic countries
>> to elect leaders whose behaviour will incline more people to
>> support the tairst. So we're safe as houses. They win if we start
>> to adopt their tactics - taking hostages and holding them for years
>> for no good reason, relying on bullets rather than ballots,
>> appointing leaders by fiat not ballot, blowing up buildings without
>> much regard for who's inside them. That kind of stuff. So, again,
>> we're fine. Trrrrst support is ebbing away as we speak.
>
> I'm still at the point of not being sure that an "election," as the
> word is commonly understood, took place.

Funnily enough, I was thinking of the forthcoming election in Eye-raq which,
like the Trojan War, n'aura pas lieu. It wasn't until I read your post I
realised how apt a description it was of 2000.
--
John Dean
Oxford


Michael West

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 7:11:54 PM2/26/04
to
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> He is clearly not a madman, and "annihilating" the US
> in a literal sense is quite impossible.


I would have said "He is clearly not stupid."
Religious zealots, and not just the homicidal
sort, have always seemed mad to me.

--
Michael West


Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany >

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 7:29:43 PM2/26/04
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:11:54 GMT, the renowned "Michael West"
<mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:

>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
>> He is clearly not a madman, and "annihilating" the US
>> in a literal sense is quite impossible.
>
>
>I would have said "He is clearly not stupid."

I agree.

>Religious zealots, and not just the homicidal
>sort, have always seemed mad to me.

Religious, I'm not so sure, but a zealot, certainly. Do you think he'd
could possibly get off on an insanity plea, in a fair trial? I don't
think so.

Michael West

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 8:23:37 PM2/26/04
to
Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:11:54 GMT, the renowned "Michael West"
> <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>> Religious zealots, and not just the homicidal
>> sort, have always seemed mad to me.
>
> Religious, I'm not so sure, but a zealot, certainly.

Do you believe that he is really a Saudi nationalist
who exploits Islamist fundamentalism for his own
purposes, rather than an Islamist himself?

> Do you think he'd
> could possibly get off on an insanity plea, in a fair trial? I don't
> think so.

Me neither.
--
Michael West


CyberCypher

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 8:42:30 PM2/26/04
to
"Michael West" <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004:

> Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:11:54 GMT, the renowned "Michael West"
>> <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Religious zealots, and not just the homicidal
>>> sort, have always seemed mad to me.
>>
>> Religious, I'm not so sure, but a zealot, certainly.
>
> Do you believe that he is really a Saudi nationalist
> who exploits Islamist fundamentalism for his own
> purposes, rather than an Islamist himself?

You mean there's a difference? I'd've thought that a truly religious
Islamic fundamentalist would spend his (impossible for it to be a
"her" in an ideal world) life living a fundamentalist life rather than
financing and carrying on a nullsade[1]. Unless, of course,
fundamentally Islam is what bin Laden says it is: a homocidal ideology
of revenge against those of different faiths.


--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.

Spehro Pefhany <Spehro Pefhany >

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 8:57:41 PM2/26/04
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 01:23:37 GMT, the renowned "Michael West"
<mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:

>Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 00:11:54 GMT, the renowned "Michael West"
>> <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Religious zealots, and not just the homicidal
>>> sort, have always seemed mad to me.
>>
>> Religious, I'm not so sure, but a zealot, certainly.
>
>Do you believe that he is really a Saudi nationalist
>who exploits Islamist fundamentalism for his own
>purposes, rather than an Islamist himself?

Yes, I believe he opportunistically exploits Islamic fundamentalism,
the Palestinian situation, resentment towards corrupt local
governments, resentment of Arab weakness, resentment of the US and
anything else he can get his hooks into in order to further his
personal goals, which probably include his place in Arab history as a
great hero. The man is a civil engineer by training, not a cleric.

Evan Kirshenbaum

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 9:00:12 PM2/26/04
to
CyberCypher <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> writes:

> You mean there's a difference? I'd've thought that a truly religious
> Islamic fundamentalist would spend his (impossible for it to be a
> "her" in an ideal world) life living a fundamentalist life rather than
> financing and carrying on a nullsade[1].

Okay, there's no footnote and the word appears neither in the
dictionary nor in Google (web or Usenet). 'Splain please?

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The Society for the Preservation of
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |Tithesis commends your ebriated and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |scrutable use of delible and
|defatigable, which are gainly, sipid
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |and couth. We are gruntled and
(650)857-7572 |consolate that you have the ertia and
|eptitude to choose such putably
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ |pensible tithesis, which we parage.


Michael West

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 9:13:50 PM2/26/04
to


Spero wrote:
> Yes, I believe he opportunistically exploits Islamic fundamentalism,
> the Palestinian situation, resentment towards corrupt local
> governments, resentment of Arab weakness, resentment of the US and
> anything else he can get his hooks into in order to further his
> personal goals, which probably include his place in Arab history as a
> great hero.

What silly duffer. I'm glad we don't have people like that in the West.
--
Michael West


CyberCypher

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 9:19:09 PM2/26/04
to
Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote on 26 Feb 2004:

> CyberCypher <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> writes:
>
>> You mean there's a difference? I'd've thought that a truly
>> religious Islamic fundamentalist would spend his (impossible for
>> it to be a "her" in an ideal world) life living a fundamentalist
>> life rather than financing and carrying on a nullsade[1].
>
> Okay, there's no footnote and the word appears neither in the
> dictionary nor in Google (web or Usenet). 'Splain please?
>

Ooops, I'm sorry. I was going to add the footnote. "nullsade" is a new
coinage (about 20 minutes ago), an isomorphic coinage based on
"crusade". The Xians have a cross to bear in their campaigns against
the unfaithful but the Muslims have no objects of any kind --- ergo,
"null" --- because they consider all objectifications (viz. religious
symbols) to be a form of idolatry.

Luca

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 9:12:59 PM2/26/04
to
"Michael West" <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:

>Armond Perretta wrote:
>
>> So have the "terraced" won?
>

>To the extent that they've interfered with our
>freedom, they have. I don't think they've yet
>killed enough of us to have "succeeded" in their
>own estimation, but they certainly must sense
>that they're on the right track.

Freedom of what? Of playing other countries like a game of backgammon?
If I remember correctly, your freedoms are being clipped by your own
government. The one that also claims to defend democracy while it seized
power in a most undemocratic way and which is far away from catering to
the "demos", the people... Except if they're willing to donate
substantial amounts of money to their re-election campaign.

Luca
--
Dolla-dolla bill, y'all.

Michael West

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 9:48:15 PM2/26/04
to
Luca wrote:

> Freedom of what? Of playing other countries like a game of backgammon?
> If I remember correctly, your freedoms are being clipped by your own
> government.

A conspicuous example would be the disruptions
in domestic air travel that occured in response
to the realization that there were people walking
around who were quite happy to hijack loaded
commercial aircraft and fly them into urban office
buildings.

Any restrictions on personal freedoms imposed
under the aegis of "homeland security" since
September 11, whether imposed by local authorities
or federal agencies, are other examples. Such
restrictions are a measure of how successful
terrorist actions are: disruption and fear are
their chief aims.
--
Michael West


CyberCypher

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 10:24:33 PM2/26/04
to
Luca <bob...@nurfuerspam.de> wrote on 26 Feb 2004:

> "Michael West" <mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:
>
>>Armond Perretta wrote:
>>
>>> So have the "terraced" won?
>>
>>To the extent that they've interfered with our
>>freedom, they have. I don't think they've yet
>>killed enough of us to have "succeeded" in their
>>own estimation, but they certainly must sense
>>that they're on the right track.
>
> Freedom of what? Of playing other countries like a game of
> backgammon?

Back in the 1960s there was a wonderful board game called
_Diplomacy_. Each player was given one European country and had to
make alliances, promises, treaties, etc. with those it thought would
help it win World War I. It was just another version of the giant
multi-player chess game that characterized European foreign policy
until that time, and continues to characterize all foreign policy to
the present. You couldn't possibly be suggesting that there is a
country in this world with a government composed of human beings so
pure and so just that they would not play the same kinds of games
were they the leading imperial power in the world today, or that
despite their being relegated to second-, third-, and even lower-
class powers at the moment that they do not continue to play such
games as hard and as willingly as they can? Just because Bush and
company are ham-handed, seashell-brained players on the world stage
doesn't mean that the American government's lack of finesse in such
matters makes it any more culpable than the polished players from
your part of the world, the world without the sin of self-interest in
its dealings inside or outside the EU.

> If I remember correctly, your freedoms are being
> clipped by your own government. The one that also claims to defend
> democracy while it seized power in a most undemocratic way

And we know what happens when monsters sieze power in a most
democratic way, don't we. It just happened in Iran this week and it
has often happened elsewhere in the world.

> and which is far away from catering to the "demos", the people...

Well, it does pander to some of the demos, unlike in your part of the
world, where governments serve only the people and nobody in
government has untoward ideas or behaves outrageously.

> Except if they're willing to donate substantial amounts of money
> to their re-election campaign.

I seem to remember that the origins of democracy were based on the
exclusion of the many from the franchise. And America is not a pure
democracy but a representative democracy; as such, it takes into
consideration only those who count at the ballot box and only those
who contribute to political coffers. Nothing like the rest of the
world, where everyone is treated equally.

Charles Riggs

unread,
Feb 26, 2004, 11:31:08 PM2/26/04
to
On 27 Feb 2004 03:24:33 GMT, CyberCypher
<cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:


>I seem to remember that the origins of democracy were based on the
>exclusion of the many from the franchise. And America is not a pure
>democracy but a representative democracy; as such, it takes into
>consideration only those who count at the ballot box and only those
>who contribute to political coffers. Nothing like the rest of the
>world, where everyone is treated equally.

Everyone? I do hope you're being ironic.
--
Charles Riggs
My email address: chriggs/at/eircom/dot/net

Martin Ambuhl

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 12:31:25 AM2/27/04
to
Charles Riggs wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2004 03:24:33 GMT, CyberCypher
> <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>I seem to remember that the origins of democracy were based on the
>>exclusion of the many from the franchise. And America is not a pure
>>democracy but a representative democracy; as such, it takes into
>>consideration only those who count at the ballot box and only those
>>who contribute to political coffers. Nothing like the rest of the
>>world, where everyone is treated equally.
>
>
> Everyone? I do hope you're being ironic.

I thought that his postings were sarcastic rather than ironic, but I
could be wrong. There is a delicate mix here of legitimate criticism of
the political process of the US with a touch of defensiveness that I
find myself often prey to. It is perfectly reasonable for non-US people
to criticize US actions that affect them. I know a get a bit touchy,
however, about people criticizing the US political system when their own
countries' political systems leave much to be desired. The comparative
study of political systems is a useful task, but when used as a whipping
tool against the US by people whose own systems lead to, for example,
the joke of a government in Italy at the moment, it is tiresome.

CyberCypher

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 7:14:23 AM2/27/04
to
Martin Ambuhl <mam...@earthlink.net> wrote on 26 Feb 2004:

> Charles Riggs wrote:
>> On 27 Feb 2004 03:24:33 GMT, CyberCypher
>> <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I seem to remember that the origins of democracy were based on
>>>the exclusion of the many from the franchise. And America is not
>>>a pure democracy but a representative democracy; as such, it
>>>takes into consideration only those who count at the ballot box
>>>and only those who contribute to political coffers. Nothing like
>>>the rest of the world, where everyone is treated equally.
>>
>> Everyone? I do hope you're being ironic.
>
> I thought that his postings were sarcastic rather than ironic, but
> I could be wrong.

One man's irony is another's sarcasm, innit? I was trying to be both
sarcastic and ironic.

> There is a delicate mix here of legitimate
> criticism of the political process of the US with a touch of
> defensiveness that I find myself often prey to. It is perfectly
> reasonable for non-US people to criticize US actions that affect
> them. I know a get a bit touchy, however, about people criticizing
> the US political system when their own countries' political
> systems leave much to be desired. The comparative study of
> political systems is a useful task, but when used as a whipping
> tool against the US by people whose own systems lead to, for
> example, the joke of a government in Italy at the moment, it is
> tiresome.

I found the OP's comments rather unpleasantly put. The guy's sense of
misplaced outrage is ludicrous when seen in the larger picture of the
history of European diplomacy for the past few hundred years. Everyone
here knows that I am not one of those "My country right or wrong" kind
of Americans" and that I am no supporter of George W Bush in any way,
shape, or form. I would love to see that dried-out excuse of a man run
out of town on a rail tarred and feathered come November. But I cannot
help agreeing that the US government acted rashly and arrogantly in
Iraq. Bush should not have rushed in with his pants down as he did.

There are ways of criticizing that leave the criticized feeling
blameworthy and there are ways that leave the criticized feeling
defensive and angry. The OP chose the second type of criticism,
unfortunately, a sure-fire way of making oneself unnappreciated and
unwelcome no matter how correct one's criticism is.

Linz

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 11:37:52 AM2/27/04
to
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:33:35 -0000, david56
<bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>16. Store a decent amount of cash someplace in case ATMs malfunction.
>22. Only carry essential money cards and identification.
>
>Hmmm. Some contradiction?

I don't think so. Carry only essential money cards and id rather than
than carrying all your credit cards, bank cards, etc. That way if
you're robbed you still have cards to fall back on.
--
Fresh milk daily

david56

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 2:16:33 PM2/27/04
to
Linz typed thus:

I mean:

only carry essential money

and

store a decent amount of cash someplace.

--
David
=====

Ross Howard

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 2:51:56 PM2/27/04
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:16:33 -0000, david56
<bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrought:

>Linz typed thus:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:33:35 -0000, david56
>> <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>> >16. Store a decent amount of cash someplace in case ATMs malfunction.
>> >22. Only carry essential money cards and identification.
>> >
>> >Hmmm. Some contradiction?
>>
>> I don't think so. Carry only essential money cards and id rather than
>> than carrying all your credit cards, bank cards, etc. That way if
>> you're robbed you still have cards to fall back on.
>
>I mean:
>
>only carry essential money

Essential for what purpose though -- enough for a coffee and your bus
fair or enough to up relocate the family and dog to a silo in the
Midwest in case of tairst attack on a truly tairfying scale?

--
Ross Howard

david56

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 3:28:08 PM2/27/04
to
Ross Howard typed thus:

> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:16:33 -0000, david56
> <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrought:
>
> >Linz typed thus:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:33:35 -0000, david56
> >> <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >16. Store a decent amount of cash someplace in case ATMs malfunction.
> >> >22. Only carry essential money cards and identification.
> >> >
> >> >Hmmm. Some contradiction?
> >>
> >> I don't think so. Carry only essential money cards and id rather than
> >> than carrying all your credit cards, bank cards, etc. That way if
> >> you're robbed you still have cards to fall back on.
> >
> >I mean:
> >
> >only carry essential money
>
> Essential for what purpose though -- enough for a coffee and your bus
> fair

That must be the cost to get in to a field which hosts an annual
market, to which people come from all over the country, to trade
buses.

> or enough to up relocate the family and dog to a silo in the
> Midwest in case of tairst attack on a truly tairfying scale?

--
David
=====

Ross Howard

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 3:59:03 PM2/27/04
to
On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:28:08 -0000, david56
<bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrought:

>Ross Howard typed thus:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 19:16:33 -0000, david56
>> <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrought:
>>
>> >Linz typed thus:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 20:33:35 -0000, david56
>> >> <bass.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >16. Store a decent amount of cash someplace in case ATMs malfunction.
>> >> >22. Only carry essential money cards and identification.
>> >> >
>> >> >Hmmm. Some contradiction?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think so. Carry only essential money cards and id rather than
>> >> than carrying all your credit cards, bank cards, etc. That way if
>> >> you're robbed you still have cards to fall back on.
>> >
>> >I mean:
>> >
>> >only carry essential money
>>
>> Essential for what purpose though -- enough for a coffee and your bus
>> fair
>
>That must be the cost to get in to a field which hosts an annual
>market, to which people come from all over the country, to trade
>buses.

An unfare comment.


--
Ross Howard

Spehro Pefhany

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 4:31:55 PM2/27/04
to

He did make a Messe of it.

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 6:42:10 PM2/27/04
to

Sic transit ...

Rolleston

unread,
Feb 27, 2004, 6:47:06 PM2/27/04
to
Robert Lieblich wrote:

Van-no?

R.

Charles Riggs

unread,
Feb 28, 2004, 12:51:54 AM2/28/04
to
On 27 Feb 2004 12:14:23 GMT, CyberCypher
<cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:

> Everyone
>here knows that I am not one of those "My country right or wrong" kind
>of Americans" and that I am no supporter of George W Bush in any way,
>shape, or form.

I'm not that kind of American either, but I've sometimes wondered if
you're a 'My country wrong' kind of American. Will you be a tad more
optimistic, do you suspect, about America's prospects once the
Democrats gain control of the executive branch? None of my business,
but do you plan to vote in November? We can bitch all we like, but
votes are what count. Vote and vote often, I always say.

Bill Bonde ( Straight invective is not satire; satire must deliberately overshoot its mark. )

unread,
Feb 28, 2004, 8:19:17 PM2/28/04
to

Michael West wrote:
>
> Armond Perretta wrote:
>
> > BTW, I've heard it said in certain (Administration) circles that the


> > "terraced" have won if they succeed in having Americans "change our
> > lifestyle." I was thinking about this while reading the Sunday NYT
> > article describing security measures being applied to buildings and
> > monuments Washington DC. It seems that these days it is almost
> > impossible to even visit many of these Security-related
> > construction is expected to continue for many years and consume quite
> > a bit of money.
> >

> > So have the "terraced" won?
>
> To the extent that they've interfered with our
> freedom, they have. I don't think they've yet
> killed enough of us to have "succeeded" in their
> own estimation, but they certainly must sense
> that they're on the right track.
>

They got us to attack them from every direction. Is that the right
track?


--
"Didn't take long," I said. He was the quietest I'd ever seen. "Don't

take long to kill things," he said, "not like it takes to grow."

--Larry McMurtry, "Horseman, Pass By"

Michael West

unread,
Feb 28, 2004, 9:21:35 PM2/28/04
to
Bill Bonde ( Straight invective is not satire; satire must deliberately

overshoot its mark. ) wrote:
> Michael West wrote:
>>
>> Armond Perretta wrote:
>>

>>> So have the "terraced" won?
>>
>> To the extent that they've interfered with our
>> freedom, they have. I don't think they've yet
>> killed enough of us to have "succeeded" in their
>> own estimation, but they certainly must sense
>> that they're on the right track.
>>
> They got us to attack them from every direction. Is that the right
> track?

I guess we'd have to ask them. The electorate is
split over the issue, the US economy is staggering
under record debt, according to some reports anti-American
feeling in the Mid East is running higher now than before
September 11. The picture of post-Taliban rule in Afganistan
is far from clear. Political stability in Iraq is looking more and
more like a pipe-dream. The proponents of theocratic fascism
in the region seem to be gaining ground rather than losing it.

So who's winning?

--
Michael West


CyberCypher

unread,
Feb 28, 2004, 11:29:32 PM2/28/04
to
Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> wrote on 27 Feb 2004:

> On 27 Feb 2004 12:14:23 GMT, CyberCypher
> <cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
>
>> Everyone
>>here knows that I am not one of those "My country right or wrong"
>>kind of Americans" and that I am no supporter of George W Bush in
>>any way, shape, or form.
>
> I'm not that kind of American either, but I've sometimes wondered
> if you're a 'My country wrong' kind of American.

I defend American national actions when I find them reasonable. I
rarely do, but I think I restricted my attack, in my response to the OP
here, to the Bush misadministration, which is not particularly anti-
American IMHO. I find that being pro-Bush is about the most anti-
American and anti-America an American can be. And the only reason
foreign governments support the USA most of the time when it expresses
the personal prejudices of it leaders is that the US government
supports those foreign governments and would remove that support if
they did not support the USA. Such is the case with Taiwan.

> Will you be a tad more optimistic, do you suspect,
> about America's prospects once the Democrats
> gain control of the executive branch?

Doubtful. President Kerry or President Edwards will still have to deal
with the likes of Hastert and Delay as majority leaders, and the
current in a series of anniversary revivals celebrating the first
revival in Northampton, MA, in 1679[1], and the countless others that
have occurred since then amongst the totally irrational in America.

In other words, until there is a serious change in the way Americans as
a whole behave in their everyday lives, there will be no change in the
way their elected representatives and their appointed officials behave
on the local, state, national, and international stages. Until
Americans shake their propensity for missionizing and crusading, for
moralizing and meddling, and for insisting that freedom means only the
freedom to practice whatever religion one chooses to believe in (as
long as it doesn't tolerate Abortion, Same-sex Marriage, or Godlessness
along with its brothers Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism, and Socialism),
the country will continued to be filled with ideological demagoguery
[2], and that will mean no change anywhere but in the Oval Office,
which will have to remain as far right as it can in order to occupy the
American political middle ground.

> None of my business, but do you plan to vote in
> November? We can bitch all we like, but votes are
> what count. Vote and vote often, I always say.

I will have to ask at the consulate here about voting procedures for US
non-residents. I have no idea how one does it when not registered to
vote in the US. But I suppose you could provide the necessary
information just as easily.

NOTES:
[1] http://www.wfu.edu/~matthetl/perspectives/four.html
[2] "'oversimplification and single-minded pursuit of an inflammatory
issue are characteristics of modern demagoguery' -- New Republic"
(W3NID)

Michael West

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 2:41:05 AM2/29/04
to
"CyberCypher" wrote:
> Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> wrote on 27 Feb 2004:
>
> > Will you be a tad more optimistic, do you suspect,
> > about America's prospects once the Democrats
> > gain control of the executive branch?
>
> Doubtful. President Kerry or President Edwards will still have to deal
> with the likes of Hastert and Delay as majority leaders [...]

Aside from that, has either of them laid out
a credible alternative? Has *anyone* on the Left?
I may be increasingly myopic, but I keep scanning
the horizon for something of substance from the
left, and I see nothing but kneejerk, issue-avoiding
naysaying.

For example, Kerry's take on the "War on Terror" is
that we should have caught Bin Laden by now. That's
a policy?

I wish the good old days would come again,
when the Left had people I could get excited about.
Maybe I just need a shot of political viagra.
--
Michael West

Michael West

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 2:41:04 AM2/29/04
to
"CyberCypher" wrote:
> Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> wrote on 27 Feb 2004:
>
> > Will you be a tad more optimistic, do you suspect,
> > about America's prospects once the Democrats
> > gain control of the executive branch?
>
> Doubtful. President Kerry or President Edwards will still have to deal

CyberCypher

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 4:15:21 AM2/29/04
to

You seem to be right about that. I haven't heard anything positive
from the Democrats (I won't call them "the Left", though, as they are
about as Right as they can be without transforming themselves from
donkeys into elephants) about the USA's "foreign policy", except for
moans about Bush's ineptitude.

Edwards has made domestic noises about a few things that suggest a
good heart, but I don't know his policies. I will have to check out
his Web site to see what he has to say on foreign policy and compare
him with Kerry.

Charles Riggs

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 5:33:03 AM2/29/04
to
On 29 Feb 2004 04:29:32 GMT, CyberCypher
<cybercypher2...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:

Happy to, especially since I know you won't be voting for Bush. I
received this in an email from Democrats Abroad:

'...go to the Federal Voter Assistance Web site at
www.fvap.gov where you can download the form and instructions.'

The form she was referring to is the Federal Post Card Application.
From the web site she cited you can navigate to a site for the state
where you last resided in the US. You don't need to have any plans to
return there again, and voting in a federal election will place no
obligation on you to pay the state's taxes. That was my worry, but
members of Democrats Abroad quickly dispelled it, as did the
accompanying instructions for the FPCA I printed out. It'd be
financially dangerous to vote in any local or state elections,
however. You still have plenty of time to register and vote if the
polices of your last state are anything like those of Maine.

Robert Lieblich

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 9:41:40 AM2/29/04
to

For a few minutes after 9/11/2001 Bush was actually making the right
noises -- this will be a long, hard, expensive slog, and things will
get worse before they get better. But hard lessons from the
electorate have forced presidential candidates of both parties to
play cheerleader -- "All your problems can be solved if only you
elect me. We'll cut taxes in half, maintain a strong defense,
provide health care for everyone, and run a surplus. All may have
as many guns as they want, but anyone committing a gun crime will be
subject to capital punishment. Porn will be abolished, divorce will
become unnecessary, and every child will receive a voucher good for
free education at a school of the parents' choice from age 3 through
Ph.D. Oh, and angels will descend from heaven to ensure that all
are happy at all times. But only if you vote for me." Say
something remotely honest -- like, for example, we need to raise
taxes across the board -- and you might as well resign from the
campaign. Ask Fritz Mondale. Ask the original George Bush, who
actually raised taxes during his first term and had wait until 2000
for a second Bush term.

The negativity is already in full swing. The Demos are attacking
Bush wherever they see vulnerability, and the Republicans are no
better. The dozens of weapon systems that Kerry allegedly "voted
against" (see Republican commercials, or study the mantra all
Republicans are already reciting on the political talk shows) were
actually part of the annual omnibus defense bill, which he joined
other Democrats in voting against because of a few unpalatable
provisions. If Dubya vetoed the HHS appropriation bill because it
contained a rider repealing the so-called Defense of Marriage Act
(unlikely, but it's a hypothetical), the Democrats, following the
same logic, could accuse Bush of trying to cut off Social Security,
Medicare, etc.

What ever became of the bully pulpit? Bush had a rare opportunity
to rally the people to sacrifice. Instead he is offering us guns
and butter and free meds for old people and more tax cuts and
millions more jobs (not doing so well there) and free trade with no
adverse consequences and just about anything else we want. The
notion that we may have to suck it up simply cannot gain any
traction. And yet we have no choice but to suck it up. We don't
have the money to go on as we have been. For-profit corporations
are running much of our military. And the annual deficit will soon
hit a trillion dollars if Dubya gets all the tax cuts and spending
he wants.

If only because I feel like a lemming following Bush off a cliff, I
plan to vote for the Democratic nominee.[1] There is, however, no
joy in it.

[1] Not that it will matter. Virginia is as likely to give its
electoral votes to anyone but Bush as Satan is to repent and ask
God's forgiveness.

--
Bob Lieblich
And I'm an optimist

Tony Cooper

unread,
Feb 29, 2004, 9:57:00 AM2/29/04
to
On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 07:41:04 GMT, "Michael West"
<mbw...@remove.bigpond.com> wrote:

>"CyberCypher" wrote:
>> Charles Riggs <CHA...@aircom.net> wrote on 27 Feb 2004:
>>
>> > Will you be a tad more optimistic, do you suspect,
>> > about America's prospects once the Democrats
>> > gain control of the executive branch?
>>
>> Doubtful. President Kerry or President Edwards will still have to deal
>> with the likes of Hastert and Delay as majority leaders [...]
>
>Aside from that, has either of them laid out
>a credible alternative? Has *anyone* on the Left?
>I may be increasingly myopic, but I keep scanning
>the horizon for something of substance from the
>left, and I see nothing but kneejerk, issue-avoiding
>naysaying.

A 360 degree view would not reveal a candidate of interest.


Michael West

unread,
Mar 1, 2004, 10:21:05 PM3/1/04
to
CyberCypher wrote:

> Edwards has made domestic noises about a few things that suggest a
> good heart, but I don't know his policies. I will have to check out
> his Web site to see what he has to say on foreign policy and compare
> him with Kerry.


His domestic policies sound fine to me. But then there's this.

From http://www.johnedwards2004.com:

Foreign Policy:

"Senator Edwards believes we should lead in a way that brings others to us,
not that drives them away, and that American families are safer in a world
where America is looked up to and respected, not in a world where America is
hated."


M'kay? I'll bet the Republicans wish they'd thought of that.

To be fair, there are actually some more concrete policy
pronouncements on the site, but when you get right down to it,
most of them are of the "Whatever we're doing, we should be
doing it better" variety.
--
Michael West


Robert Lieblich

unread,
Mar 1, 2004, 10:26:51 PM3/1/04
to

As American politics has evolved, presidential politics in
particular, Rule 1 is "Never say anything that will alienate any
potential voter." In real life, of course, you hav to annoy *some*
people, so the first corollary to Rule 1 is "If you must alienate
anyone, alienate the person who's going to vote for the other guy
anyway."

Yes, it's a prescription for pabulum. And that's what we get. See
above.

--
Bob Lieblich
At least we aren't required to vote

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages