Post #9,175
9/14/01 4:51:56 PM
9/14/01 4:53:02 PM
|
Ashton you are a prophet of incredible accuracy
The "Comabating Terrorism Act of 2001" has just passed the Senate. Wiretaps on demand without a court order.
[link|http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00.html|[link|http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,46852,00.html|http://www.wired.co...6852,00.html]]
Goodbye Civil Liberties, hello personal/political agendas.
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
--Thomas Jefferson
Edited by Silverlock
Sept. 14, 2001, 04:53:02 PM EDT
|
Post #9,193
9/14/01 6:03:14 PM
|
As the neo-fascists come (no, oooooze) out of the woodwork
like the despicible vermin they are.
If this were a football game, this is a field goal for bin Ladin.
Current score:
bin Laden Fascists: 10
Americans: 3
(But it's still early...)
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
I thought of changing or suspending my sig, but in retrospect, it still applies (even without this newest assault on our way of life)
|
Post #9,199
9/14/01 7:08:12 PM
|
Kind words but, many Knew such would be on agendas :[
Consider the mere idea of authoritarianism and the present roster of recycled members of the Executive branch, and its overall intellectual capacity: starting with John Ashcroft.
Time for a nationwide press for instituting:
EXPIRATION DATES on all legislation, lest more Millennium Acts become the end of Our Fourth Reich, all ignominiously.. Trade safety for liberty? indeed.
Ugh. We give bin Laden EXACTLY what he wished for, preparing for that er slight change of (the Name of) Authority he is scheduling for us all.
A.
|
Post #9,322
9/15/01 7:58:16 PM
|
Ashton, What ARE you talking about?
"and the present roster of recycled members of the Executive branch, and its overall intellectual capacity: starting with John Ashcroft."
Ashcroft was a senator, he wasn't recycled. His intellectual capacity has never been questioned. He calls things as he sees them and that is it. If he had been the hack you thought, he'd have settled with the criminals in Redmond by now.
I'd much rather have the adults back in charge of the Executive Branch than the boys that were running it before. We wasted 8 years during which Clinton pissed on American military power and intelligence capabilities. He completely failed to overhaul the military and intelligence services to be ready for aysymmetical warfare.
If you listen closely, the Bush administration is at least completely re-evaluating everything. Clinton, Bush, Reagan, and Carter gave us "gee, maybe we'll pop off some missiles, guns, etc." This administration at least deserves your respect for entirely rethinking the last 20 years of sweeping these problems under the rug. They may not get it right, but at least they realize the entire scope of the problem.
And any response should be in clear, concise, English sentences, not the disjointed crap you expect us to read and understand.
Gerard Allwein
|
Post #9,324
9/15/01 8:38:24 PM
|
I'm afraid I can't consider . .
. . resurection of "Star Wars" an enlightened policy. It's only purpose is to make a few friends of the administration filthy rich.
A nuclear attack on the United States is far more likely to be delivered by Roadway Express than by missile.
Star Wars isn't going to work anyway. I'm sure you are aware the recent "successful" test was faked, and military officials admitted they are a long, long way away from a working product.
If anything ever does work, and gets deployed (neither of which I expect to happen) small changes in delivery vehicles will easily confuse it into uselessnes.
A much more effective method of preventing nuclear attack would be a lot more customs inspectors at the ports and borders.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #9,355
9/16/01 9:17:07 AM
|
Brilliant
A nuclear attack on the United States is far more likely to be delivered by Roadway Express than by missile. So therefore you're going to completely ignore the possiibility of missile attack. Brilliant. Rest in peace, Jeremy, Mark, and whoever else who helped overpower the hijackers on Flight 93.
|
Post #9,364
9/16/01 10:49:42 AM
|
Missile attacks, like terrorism . .
. . have to be stopped at point of origin.
The "Star Wars" system hasn't a chance in hell of stopping a missile attack. It can't stop a bomb in a shipping container, and it can't stop one on an ICBM. It doesn't work, it won't work, and if it were anywhere near working, missile designs would be changed so it didn't, at negligeable cost.
The military has confessed that this last test, the first "successful" one, succeeded only because the warhead was fitted with a homing beacon. I don't think warheads come with that standard.
Wasting a huge amount of money on Star Wars makes less sense than the French spending money on the Maginot Line (at least heavy guns were known to hit tarkets sometimes). It did them not one bit of good, just gave them a false sense of security.
We laugh at the French today, just as others would laugh at us if we depended on an anti-missile defense.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #9,371
9/16/01 2:41:24 PM
|
Co-Resident Cheney on TV just now..
I willingly give the man credit - he speaks English more than adequately. I deem this also makes him as responsible for the veracity of his statements, as their intentionality.
ABM was brought up by talking head, in context of these other new expensive priorities. He does not remotely get-it re the need, priority, possibility of utility of ABM. That or, he is able to close ears and extemporize with the best of them. Or says.. he doesn't get the counter arguments.
As with Ronnie's Morning in America series, we shall be sold on the obvious idea that - yes, it would be Nice to have a functioning umbrella, thus to be able to pretend that the two oceans: permit us to retain the illusion that wars don't happen IN Murica, they are acted-out somewhere Over There. It's a nice Dream; we live amidst so Many dreams here.
I acknowledge it Would be Nice. IF doable.. while also not ignoring the needs of the 95% who do not control the wealth of Murica, incluing the tens of millions working at so-called 'min-wage' who, with more than one job: live below 'poverty level' (both highly manipulated numbers to fit highly lobbied faux-definitions).
IF doable at all. My career in big science, direct conversations with those - earlier - doing classified research on the problem(s) and Just Plain Physics tells me, it is close enough to what you said.
I've met Teller - a brilliant sociopath. One Lester G. explained 'hardness' and its implications, well before that concept was well enough understood by military: to realize WHY the MIGs of that era used vacuum-tube electronics.. (about which 'we' were prone to laugh!). We stopped laughing when we looked closer at our transistorized militarized PlayStations du jour. There's more..
IF significant progress were ever made in the intractable problems of boost-phase time, accuracy, numbers of launch stations and very much else -- indeed the obvious response ever WILL BE -- simply focus upon the inevitable loopholes. There are *SO MANY*.
IF Cheney truly does not comprehend this last, he is much less astute than his polished rhetoric, or even more cynical re incresing the wealth concentration among his cronies - than most would have suspected.
We'll see how large is the nose-ring in the Congressional voters on this fantasy, won't we? Much may occur in any next.
Ashton
|
Post #9,381
9/16/01 4:10:37 PM
|
It's a popular idea because . .
. . it's a solution to yesterday's problem (disregarding the liklihood of it working). Yesterday's problems are always easier to understand and solve than today's.
It's like the aircraft carrier - hero of World War II in the Pacific. Because carrier operations were so successful, most of our admirals came up from the carrier force, and would hear of nothing else as a strategic weapon against the Soviet Union, China, etc.
Meanwhile, the younger officers circulated the formula that "One aircraft carrier + one submarine = one submarine". ***
During the Vietnam War, Marcus Aurelius Arnheiter did not get into so much trouble just for bringing his destroyer too close to shore, he got into so much trouble for bringing his destroyer too close to shore because he was the author of a paper that conclusively proved the above formula, which greatly offended senior officers.
Aircraft cariers are still a fine weapon to use against people who don't have submarines and don't have close friends who do, but aircraft carriers work, Star Wars doesn't.
*** Back in the '70s there was some debate in the Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute over a paper that claimed to have mathematically proven that two fixed wing anti-submarine aircraft working together were 6 times as effective as just one, and that three working together were twice as effective as 2.
A retired submarine captain commented that he had studied the mathematics in detail and confirmed they were sound. He added: "However, from my point of view, 12 times 0 is still a very small number".
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #9,426
9/17/01 9:02:57 AM
9/17/01 9:04:25 AM
|
More not-so-fuzzy math
*** Back in the '70s there was some debate in the Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute over a paper that claimed to have mathematically proven that two fixed wing anti-submarine aircraft working together were 6 times as effective as just one, and that three working together were twice as effective as 2. Similarly, another study about the efficacy of the "flying house" (aka the F-15/F-16) showed conclusively that, when taking on an F-5 modified to look and act like a MiG-2x (which is to say, the f-5s had their radar and other avionic detection systems disabled), the F-15/F-16 downed the F-5/MiG every time. However, when 2 F-5s took on the F-15/F-16, the F-15/F-16 won only 50% of the time (the other 50%, the F-5 downed the F-15/F-16); when 3 F-5s took on an F-15/16, the F-15/16 was killed every time. The F-5 cost 1/5 of the cost to build than an F-15/16 (and that includes the cost of the avionics that were disabled during the "test"). Do the math. And the decision makers that decided that the F-15/16 was a better plane than the f-5 because its "wow-factor" is higher are the same people who are touting (and stand to profit from) the so-called "Star Wars" defense. Andrew is right. jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
Edited by jb4
Sept. 17, 2001, 09:04:25 AM EDT
|
Post #9,429
9/17/01 9:40:47 AM
|
Lack of "Wow!" factor
The most effective machinery we used to womp on Iraq were items that the military never wanted (because of lack of "Wow!" factor) but in some cases were actively campaigning to get rid of.
A prime example is "Warthog", which the Air Force didn't want in the first place and had almost succeeded in getting scrapped just before the war started.
The Navy most certainly didn't want the fast deployment freighters that carried the gear, nor did the Air Force want the big transport planes that hauled some of the lighter loads.
All these "Plain Jane" projects were forced on the military by Congress. Many were Carter administration projects and none were particualarly high tech or particularly expensive.
Star Wars has more "Wow!" than you can shake a stick at, and a price tag that gives defense contractors a throbbing erection, but it doesn't work, will never work well enough to use, and is aimed at a target of fading importance.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #9,439
9/17/01 12:11:47 PM
|
And now for some downright bad math
My favorite math mistake is the flying wing design.
In the 50's they asked the question, "What plane design would get the maximum range?" They set up their equations, solved for all of the partials being 0, and came up with the flying wing. Then they built it at the cost of billions, tried it, and it sucked.
Turns out that if they had checked the second derivative, they would have found it was the absolute worst possible design. (Basic max-min problem, the first derivative tells you where to look but doesn't tell you if you got a max, min, or inflection point.) But by then billions were invested, careers on the line...and they still build them.
And another high-tech, low-tech issue.
One reason to prefer high-tech is fewer casualties. However given current events, it is likely that the US will want a much larger military force about as quickly as it can ramp up, and has just become much more tolerant of potential casualties. Which means that anyone in the military with brains is probably reviewing their possible designs and selecting ones which they can ramp up production on fairly rapidly. And that means a lot more low-tech...
Cheers,
Ben
|
Post #9,498
9/17/01 3:40:18 PM
|
Not quite so simple in practice.
Do the math.
And the decision makers that decided that the F-15/16 was a better plane than the f-5 because its "wow-factor" is higher are the same people who are touting (and stand to profit from) the so-called "Star Wars" defense.
I knew someone who worked on radar systems for many military planes. One of his last projects before he retired was working on a "radar simulator".
Do I hear you say, "Eh?"
As I understood it, it feeds simulated radar signals from various planes into radar receivers so that they can be tested, tweaked, etc., and so operators can be trained on the receiver equipment.
You may be thinking: Why do that when you can simply fly the planes and use the receiver on the plane? Why spend X hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more, on such developing such a piece of equipment? Even the data collection for the simulator must have been very expensive. Surely it must just have been a boondoggle project to get more money into the military industrial complex, eh?
No.
Most of the time the military isn't at war. It's waiting around, and training people in case of war - trying to stay ready. And in peacetime (and probably in wartime too) one of the biggest expenses the Air Force has is the cost of fuel. Pilots have to fly to keep up their skills, etc. and its expensive. It's also expensive to fly a bomber or tanker or cargo plane around to test its radar systems, train radar operators, etc. There are big payoffs in using simulators to reduce the amount of flying time that has to be done. It reduces noise. It reduces pollution. It's safer. Etc.
Similarly, replacing a F-16 with 5 F-5s isn't necessarily cheaper. Maintenance costs are likely much higher on the older planes than the newer ones. Maintenance costs are also a high percentage of the Air Force's costs. The cost for keeping 5 times as many pilots trained, flying them around, etc., would also be much higher than the F-16 in just fuel. And how good would an F-5 be at being a platform for stand-off weapons?
This isn't to say that often times projects are started which don't make much sense, and projects are ended for the wrong reasons. That has happened and continues to happen.
But most of the people making these decisions aren't idiots. They can do back-of-the-envelope calculations as well as anyone. Most of them have dedicated their professional careers to doing the best job they can with the constraints they have.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #9,710
9/19/01 1:40:08 PM
|
What kind of test?
Was it a dogfight? Or a (nore likely?) scenario of interception?
|
Post #9,815
9/20/01 8:44:13 AM
|
Re: What kind of test?
As I recal (this was some 10 years ago...) the test was a simulated dogfight, where the F16 was to have flown into "enemy territory" and was engaged by the F-5s
jb4
(Resistance is not futile...)
|
Post #9,833
9/20/01 11:15:36 AM
|
Re: What kind of test?
In that case, I think winning against 2 to 1 odds in 50% of the cases is an amazing feat. All that beatiful electronics won't help you when the other fellow is on your tail.
|
Post #9,921
9/20/01 4:28:52 PM
|
All I Have To Say
I don't intend to get involved with this discussion as I am too disgusted with humanity at large to give a shit any more.
The best thing to do is revoke all temporary visas including H1-Bs, students, EVERYONE who is not a citizen, and to conduct THOROUGH interviews with everyone who has been granted a green card within the last five years. I would even consider sending green carders home. The borders must be locked.
BTW, the best way to deliver a bomb is in a Cessna 172. Blast effect depends on airburst. Someone will surely try it someday.
Our civil liberties are gone. Big Brother is here. I resign from humanity.
-ross
|
Post #9,937
9/20/01 5:00:59 PM
|
I can think of two better ways to deliver a bomb than Cessna
And neither of them require U.S. visa requirements.
I'm not going to post it here - unencrypted. You want my PGP key? It's in the Water Cooler forum, at least directions on how to get it.
No, not copping an attitude, I just don't want to leave those ideas sitting around for some freak.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #10,091
9/21/01 11:49:38 AM
|
Security through obscurity?
No, not copping an attitude, I just don't want to leave those ideas sitting around for some freak.
while I understand your point - the freaks don't seem to require the ideas of others.
|
Post #10,093
9/21/01 11:55:31 AM
|
I know.
I'd still not rather leave them sitting around.
It's not so much the freaks I'm worried about as it is our own government getting the wrong idea.
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
Post #9,994
9/20/01 9:22:47 PM
|
hey doc ot science question
over in science I had a comment about quantum gravity, dont laugh at it but could ya take a look and comment?
thanx,
bill
why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them?
Randy Wayne White
|
Post #10,068
9/21/01 10:38:43 AM
|
Answered
Also, check netscape.net email.
-ross
|
Post #9,339
9/16/01 12:27:05 AM
|
Ashcroft was sheer payback for losing to a dead guy
he did do the right thing and not campaign but he wuz beat. Everyone from cheney on down is dads recycles. I dont say it is wrong, those are the folks he is comfortable with but I didnt like them then and still dont but they are in charge and I will watch them carefully. I dont care how much they steal as long as they give a wink and a nod to the little folk. They had also get this right. The biggest failure is Humint, I have been griping for years but papa bush is the one that dismantled the cia at the behest of congress.
thanx,
bill
why did god give us a talleywhacker and a trigger finger if he didnt want us to use them?
Randy Wayne White
|
Post #9,341
9/16/01 12:43:35 AM
|
Ditto, I'm affraid...
I feel much better knowing that the old boys are there if Dubya needs them. I actually couldn't think of a better man to have in the family at this time than George Sr. In times of war, it most definately is best that amateur hour is over. I have to agree that the whole military enchilada went to hell during the Clinton watch... but there were some Republican Senates and Houses that didn't do much to stop it?
Partisanship aside, before this attack, Washington was concerned what would happen to the budget "surplus"... Just where in the world did this surplus come from... Could it be the so called "peace dividend" we heard about at the end of the cold war? Damn fricken straight that's what it was. Real genius on Clinton's part? They just quit calling it a draconian cut on defense spending and started calling it a "surplus". Well, it's been parroted by the liberal media as "surplus" for the last 8 years so.... that's what it is. GUESS WHAT. WE"RE SPENDING THAT "SURPLUS" ON DEFENSE ANYWAY.
What I really think is "silly" is that people would be playing armchair quarterback at this particular time in history... "Well, if only Gore were president now..." What? Would that make a rats bit of difference? We'd be behind him with the full resources remaining within this government. Just like we are with Dubya. Again, I feel a strong comfort knowing that George Sr. is available at this particular time. I also doubt that Colin Powell would have been SOS for Gore... etc... Cheney is also a huge asset.
Well, maybe some of these old "paranoid fart" conservatives have had a bit of a point... In the same regard as insurance is a terrible waste of money for most people, but IF YOU NEED IT, you better have it. It's probably because few of the World War II veterans are still alive to remember enought to be paranoid and to take out insurance.
Just a few thoughts,
Dan - a man of few thoughts...
"Putting the fren into frenetic"
|
Post #9,349
9/16/01 3:55:53 AM
|
He is an ex-senator. He lost. And I've seen him speak
a couple times in past days. His replies were trite and unimaginitive (nothing to do with simply, withholding info he shouldn't divulge). If he's an intellectual giant, he camouflages it well. Perhaps he writes great briefs - he talks poorly.
Hack or not - he favors a theocracy IMO. And were he to be part of writing a new set of 'Emergency Powers', I'd worry. I will worry next: about everything like web-control and misuse of Carnivore, etc. in the obvious direction of aforementioned authoritarianism, which I believe is where this admininstration's sentiments lie.
Of course! it's too early to judge the efforts to respond, already. Much more important will be their ability to anticipate that this enemy is as likely to go to a completely different vulnerability of our open society, next.
Perhaps they will do better than the last group, in this unknown situation. Let us see if they focus most attention just on airplanes. Let us see if they can out-Clinton in forming rapidly a new network across the world - employing war rules (and less due-process?) in putting out contracts on the already documented sociopaths.
I would like to believe that this reevaluation you suggest - is more than propaganda. We can talk about the success of the recycled folk, in a few months. I'll settle for their demonstrating appropriate patience; brilliance would be a real bonus.
You write your crap/opinions the way you like, and I'll write mine. Reading is optional.
Ashton
|
Post #9,540
9/17/01 7:41:12 PM
|
Re: He is an ex-senator. He lost. And I've seen him speak
Whatever, your opinion of his abilities aren't something I share. I do not believe he believes in theocracy. If he's a true conservative, he shouldn't.
Every administration since Kennedy has been more "authoritarian". That isn't the point. The point is right now, what level of freedom is consistent with the level of security we want. There isn't a correct answer to that question. No one knows. I do not believe it is a question in your mind, since you seem to have already made up your mind. But I think it is question. And I do not think it is an easy question.
Recycled folk to you are experienced folk to me. We'll see how they do. The past 4 administrations have failed. I expect, and I hope, this administration does better. From what they are saying, they aren't going off half-cocked to nuke the Afghans back to the Stone Age...which, by wild coincidence, they already appear to be at.
And I appreciate your not using the usual crap that you presume passes for English you usually use. I didn't call your opinions crap, those I merely disagree with.
Gerard Allwein
|
Post #9,546
9/17/01 8:34:28 PM
|
Fair agreement.
For me the question re Ashcroft is certainly about what he does 'mean' by "conservative" (or for that matter, any of the other blab-labels too vague to mean anything at all, even if once they might have).
As to security - my personal preference would be, maybe always, but especially mid-emergency: that an expiration date be attached to ALL of these "Millenium Act on ___" dicta. We have already the evidence of DMCA, and the possible ascent of UCITA as fair warning about the evanescence of matching techno- changes to principles we thought we had.
It is inescapable that some new barriers to normal daily habits simply must occur next; who could imagine otherwise? But I believe the vigilance is best expressed in the above notion and - scrutiny for the slipping-in of familiar agendas, those defeated in less chaotic times - but ripe for being wrapped in The Flag, now.
A.
|
Post #9,761
9/19/01 7:49:38 PM
|
Fair agreement.
My own opinion of Ashcroft is that he's more of the liberatarian wing of the conservatives than the religious conservatives. I do understand his opposition to abortion and I agree with it. But he also says (in this respect) he'll uphold the law of the land whatever that is. I want him to keep that and I think he'd have to go through (for him and me) mind-boggling contortions to break with that attitude. BTW, do you know who was the co-sponsor of the Freedom of Information Act...James Buckley, brother of William.
I don't like the DCMA anymore than you do. But there's is a problem with sunset provisions on restrictions designed (well, we hope they are designed) to curtail terrorist activities. When do we declare victory? What conditions did we ever lay down to declare victory over Communism? It's impossible, in my opinion. I think, rather, in this sense the terrorists have won. We cannot allow no snooping on things like stock trades because a terrorist has a distinct advantage to manipulate the market. The toothpaste is out of the tube here. When do you relinquish the controls? 5 yrs? 10 yrs? There's no right answer.
Being wrapped in the flag is fine as long as we don't get blinded by the damn thing. Personally, the best thing we could right now is pump aid to the Iranians and Pakistanis (under our control or oversight) to support Afghan refugees. The next thing we should do is bomb the Afghanis back to non-famine levels with grain, simple stoves, etc. Anything that allows the people to function as people, not some damn extension of a politico-religious organization. The Taliban are nothing more than a reification of Nietzche's Will to Power.
The Taliban are mainly Pashtus, they are 40% of the pop. and are based in S. Afghanistan. There are a lot of other groups: Uzbeks, Hawaris, Tajiks, etc. The BBC reports that the Taliban have used their Arab "friends" to do the dirty work on these other minorities. Most Afghans are Sunnis, but the Hawaris are Shi'ite. Iran supports them, but these guys are just as bad as the Pashtu Taliban. We are should not be interested in remaking a country, we should be interested in making people safe, non-hungry, and understanding that we (and I really hope that is WE) care about THEM as simple human beings. ( and it if that necessitated we push democracy on Arab world ( the Afghans are not Arab ), then we should do that and tell the Arab regimes to change or die).
From all reports, at least Colin Powell is on top of this. Bush...geezes I wish he'd keep his mouth shut. But most of the foot'n mouth disease is because he actually has to make statements every day or else allow Americans to devolve into "kill'em all, let God sort'em out". It ain't easy, and his words get mixed up, but I have yet to see him make a wrong decision. That's easy, he's not made any decisions...and that is good sign. I hope it keeps up.
That being said, we cannot allow an attack to be unpunished. It need retribution, but it needs to be smart retribution. It needn't even involve killing anyone, but it if does...so be it.
Gerard Allwein
|
Post #9,769
9/19/01 8:54:40 PM
|
Second that kind of bombing..
and sincerely hope that a facsimile suggestion reaches the ears of a few in the power structure. Such a gesture could only both, do Good (!) and confound the extremists. Done in the spirit of Gandhi (who I think said it best, on occasion when India could 'help' anyone else) ~ we offer you this assistance and pray you will forgive us for it.. I think - an entire psych. course within that sentence.
Bow to your more detailed lore about the sects - Uzbeks, Tajiks and a bit of Taliban-comingling I've heard about, from Russ friends. I have to believe that State Dept. contains at least a few, fully cognizant of the surreal landscape (add the terrain too).
May your take on Ashcroft be the accurate one - and may he write better than he speaks..
I also sympathize with Dubya; believe he's indeed smarter than his 'communication skills', and agree - he has to say Something. Let it be.. little as possible. My hope remains that - we somehow discover the wisdom to handle this-all otherwise than knee-jerk.
Ashton
|
Post #10,496
9/26/01 4:53:06 AM
|
Gerard: Any revised thoughts on Ashcroft's 'Libertarianism'?
Here are just a few links re his current way of thinking about the trade of 'security' VS er 'liberty'?
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=10494|MATA, SSSCA... and surely more in the Right-wings?]
{sigh} Still wondering where I've gone wrong, in deeming this bird a one of Prey. Please reassure me that he isn't doing what his proposed legislation 'does'..
(I didn't see mention of "Emergency Time-limited" or such phrases in his proposals - just frequent use of word Millennium as in, The Thousand Year.. er Reich?)
Ashton
|
Post #9,249
9/15/01 1:05:06 AM
|
if history cycles, we're about due for neo-McCarthyism
________________
oop.ismad.com
|
Post #9,376
9/16/01 3:02:28 PM
|
Disagree, though some hope is required.
We may be about to dismantle the One party with Two Right Wings, wherein what used to be called 'moderate' has been relabelled 'liberal'. Dubya VS Gore (out of 280 million) may be the last such charade for a time (??)
If liberal still means - "open to new ideas" (one never knows what any particular person 'means' by blab words) - we have seen that conservative means too often - pandering to home-grown Fundamentalists; whatever it takes to keep their votes.
Even Cheney today, faced the question re "trading liberties for safety" and gave the only correct answer. It remains to find out what he 'means' re that, next.
We may see an actual Liberal (not 'moderate') facing an actual Conservative (not reactionary / Fundamentalist) in next elections, if we have them. "Tolerant of views differing from one's own", has a nice ring to it - to me at least - after so many years of calling that view Commyunist yada yada.
But then, it's Murica. If it ain't soon back to being the former America? Then.. never mind.
Ashton
The truth shall make you free.
But first it will piss you off.
Gloria Steinem
|
