Post #110,784
7/21/03 9:22:19 PM
7/22/03 9:56:02 PM
|
Oh come on.
A better subject line might be "Man kicked off plane for being an inconsiderate asshole". He wasn't refused passage till he refused to remove the stupid pin. He calls it political speech but from what I read, it was more in the nature of a self promoting advertisement.
He can make any "political" statement he wants. A business can refuse to serve him if that statement interferes in any way with the business. Making the help nervous or uncomfortable can interfere with the business.
Like this: Some actor in a play titled "The Waitress Rapist" wears a pin with that wording to a bar after rehearsals.... Do I need to continue?
Edit: replaced "named" with "titled" in last sentance.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
Edited by Silverlock
July 22, 2003, 09:56:02 PM EDT
Oh come on.
A better subject line might be "Man kicked off plane for being an inconsiderate asshole". He wasn't refused passage till he refused to remove the stupid pin. He calls it political speech but from what I read, it was more in the nature of a self promoting advertisement.
He can make any "political" statement he wants. A business can refuse to serve him if that statement interferes in any way with the business. Making the help nervous or uncomfortable can interfere with the business.
Like this: Some actor in a play named "The Waitress Rapist" wears a pin with that wording to a bar after rehearsals.... Do I need to continue?
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,786
7/21/03 9:35:07 PM
|
OK - how about '?W' buttons then.. or 'Impeach Bush' ?
|
Post #110,789
7/21/03 10:06:04 PM
|
Acting obtuse?
It's not a role that suits you. Or are you discounting that I said this - He calls it political speech but from what I read, it was more in the nature of a self promoting advertisement. I thought that was pretty clear. Given that, if the same circumstances occurred and his pin was as you suggest, *then* I would have a problem. Not in this case. -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,829
7/22/03 6:07:19 AM
|
It's like crazy Aunt Martha
..nobody's supposed to Notice she's in the corner, cutting up the furniture and drooling.
The "Terrorist" bugaboo has become the Anything Goes mantra for - ANY Assholish thing (including confiscation of nail clippers!) wink-wink nudge-nudge. All to give the illusion of Doing Something, however bizarrely irrelevant to any actual Terrorist Plot 2003 remotely capable of succeeding within a plane full of people [other than quadriplegics] who are -
WELL FUCKING MINUTELY-AWARE OF 9/11 D'Oh
So this guy merely states the Obvious on his button: We Are Presumed Terrorists First and Treated As Such\ufffd YES, Murican *transportation* guardians are indeed behaving with arrant stupidity -- but we aren't supposed to say so:
Shaking down 80 yo grandmothers (fat chance with a BOX full of nailclippers or BOX-knives.) Look a bit Semitic ? Er are you Bluish, Sir? You make our WASP Captain nervous - see, he lives in a Gated Community and you *coloreds* make him a bit unbalanced. You know how it is.. He used to live in the South before them uppity.. so, if he's nervous, well - Get Your Ass off this Murican Conveyance, you fucking nervous-making unMurican wog.
It's racist, it's Silly; it brings out the worst in the fear-besotted but brain deficient - and tries to glorify the whole inane schmeer. Worst of all - it's now so often Simply Stupid. A 'sharp' fucking Medal of Honor: shall I throw it in with the nail clippers, sir? Sir? Sir!
Pshaw.
Herd hysteria as only Muricans can wallow in to such extremes. (while feeling Good about our 'Vigilance' - that which is so lacking in imagination as to be missing much more Likely approaches, while rote looking for exact replays)
Yada & Yada. If that's obtuse: I'm It. But WTF - fly Loony Tunes if you must. Til the mere Spam-in-a-Can packaging and disdain for paying customers reduces all flights to the occasional necessity and those Bizness/Golf conference things. As they drop out one at a time. (You think I'm the only one who finds our so-typical overreaction ludicrous?)
I'll walk or drive - until we commence the strip searches | drive naked before entering the Interstate. 3 years in one of those new prisons, our main construction industry of recent years - for "evasion with a loincloth" (Probably in Texas first, land of Induhvidual Rights - right?)
Ashton
meanwhile - SSShhhhhhh..
What Aunt Martha?
|
Post #110,788
7/21/03 9:57:53 PM
|
Huh?
A business can refuse to serve him if that statement interferes in any way with the business. Making the help nervous or uncomfortable can interfere with the business.
What world do you live in?
Hmm.
Interacial couples make me uncomfortable. I refuse to serve them.
Does that work for you?
How about: Them damn Jews got some mighty strange noses. They give me the willies. You wear are Star of David into my restaurant and I'll kick you out.
Oh, I know!
My favorite button:
You can help wipe out COBOL in your lifetime!
That should get me refused service from all major companies. They all use it for their systems, right? And it MUST make a few COBOL programmers uncomfortable.
Self promotion? Nothing there on that. It merely triggers a discussion for those who wish to ask about it, and then he can express his views.
|
Post #110,790
7/21/03 10:26:23 PM
|
You equating this with discrimination?
How so? Race, Religion, what? A sense of proportion might not be useless here. However, I will give you that my wording as to a business' right to refuse was too strong. There are limits. This does not fall within those. His actions led to this all-too-predictable result. You disagree that it was self promotion. I think it is. From the author's description of the events- The button, which was created by political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Large images of the button and I appear in the cover story of Reason Magazine this month, and the story is entitled "Suspected Terrorist". -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,956
7/22/03 5:34:20 PM
|
Re: You equating this with discrimination?
Yes.
Discrimination against the self-promoting (i.e. every Repo "entrepreneur" in the world).
Discrimination against those willing (and/or able) to take advantage of 1st amendment rights
Discrimination against those who will not bleat.
Discrimination against those who truly believe they are suspected terrorists.
Etc.
jb4
The difference between Confidence and Ego is that Confidence has respect, while Ego does not.
Candyce Burns (my wife)
|
Post #111,005
7/22/03 9:21:26 PM
|
All riiiighty then.
.... . . he said in a pet detective tone. /sarcasm Point made? If not, read on. Anyone have a link to the pertinant laws? I'll go with this till then- These laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin, sex, disability, and on the basis of age. From [link|http://www.ed.gov/offices/OCR/know.html|here]. What protected class does this guy fall into? I don't see anything that makes me think inconsiderate, insensitive, self-important, self promoting assholes gain the protection of the law against discrimination. Best interpretation: He's fighting in the only way he can imagine for what he believes. I think his imagination is lacking. -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #111,181
7/23/03 6:44:09 PM
|
One's lack of imagination is not criminal...
...at least it shouldn't be (but Ashcroft is the AG, so what do I know).
Look, there is no law against being a smartass, nor is there a law, rule, directive, alert, suggestion, etc. that states that wearing a pin that might offend the Puritanical, might-makes-right "sensibilities of some former fighter jockey is prima-facie grounds for ejection from a commercial jet airliner.
And Ghod help us all if there ever is such a law, rule, directive, alert, suggestion, etc.
jb4
The difference between Confidence and Ego is that Confidence has respect, while Ego does not.
Candyce Burns (my wife)
|
Post #110,791
7/21/03 10:49:37 PM
|
In Joisey, (where else) two dreadlocked fellers
were refused entrance to a bar saying dreadlocks were smelly and annoying.
thanx,
bill
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #110,802
7/21/03 11:26:40 PM
|
..and pull your pants up!
-drl
|
Post #110,969
7/22/03 6:53:06 PM
7/22/03 11:08:34 PM
|
.. and cut off that sissy ponytail - might conceal Stuff
Edited by Ashton
July 22, 2003, 11:08:34 PM EDT
|
Post #110,794
7/21/03 10:57:19 PM
|
I thought you supported the Dixie Chicks?
[link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=98524|Post #98524]
Darrell Spice, Jr. [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #110,830
7/22/03 6:12:17 AM
|
Yeah, me too - but then
we're all allowed to make a Bad Call once in a while. Hell, with Shrub's propaganda every day, Ashcroft's simpering nude-stachoo aversions.. it's awonder that more people aren't just shooting up the workplace -- emulatin what the Neoconmen have planned for.. lots o' them Uppity little countries that don't Vote Repo.
;-)
|
Post #110,850
7/22/03 8:52:16 AM
|
Huh?
Can you point out the relevance for me? I must be thick. I don't see how the situations are at all comparable.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,855
7/22/03 9:38:46 AM
|
Re: Huh?
A business can refuse to serve him if that statement interferes in any way with the business. You're saying a business can do what they need to do to make sure someone's actions "don't interfer with business" - yet, said it was wrong for the radio stations to not play the Dixie Chicks when the [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=101138|business' listeners said they didn't want to hear them]. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #110,867
7/22/03 10:38:39 AM
|
You quote yourself
And still fail to make your case. An organ for entertainment just doesn't seem to compare with a plane full of passengers to me.
Once again, point out where these are comparable. So far, I don't see it.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,875
7/22/03 10:52:14 AM
|
I refer to an article
that's no longer online, so linked to my post with the relative quotes. Once again, point out where these are comparable. So far, I don't see it. Can a business decline to conduct business with someone else based on their political speach? In the two instances you're on opposite sides. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #110,879
7/22/03 11:04:12 AM
|
One more time.
Very slowly.
IMO, It's. Not. Political. Speech.
It's self promotion for a magazine article where his picture is on the cover along with the button. The button created (from what I read) to promote the article.
That's been my point all along. I don't agree that this was political speech. You can argue with that all day long. What you can't do is say I'm arguing opposite sides. Unless, of course, you intentionally ignore my oft-repeated statement that I regard this as a self promotional advertisement.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,880
7/22/03 11:16:24 AM
|
Re: One more time.
Very slowly.
IMO, It's. Not. Political. Speech.
It's self promotion for a magazine article where his picture is on the cover along with the button. The button created (from what I read) to promote the article.
That's been my point all along. I don't agree that this was political speech. You can argue with that all day long. What you can't do is say I'm arguing opposite sides. Unless, of course, you intentionally ignore my oft-repeated statement that I regard this as a self promotional advertisement. I have REALLY tried to stay out of this, but I have to stand up here and say I see what Silverlock is saying. I don't see it as a political statement either. And what's worse really, is if the man had simply removed the button when asked, he would have been fine. Just like we hand over our tweezers and nail clippers and everything else. But he had to make a stink over it, which is why there is even a problem in the first place. I understand that some of the measures taken seem silly, but honestly, if we all cooperated more, the lines would go faster, the security would be more efficient, and hopefully, the goal intended, which is to make air travel safer, would be achieved. Nightowl >8# (so extremely glad I do NOT fly.) "Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
|
Post #110,884
7/22/03 11:45:00 AM
|
No, no and no
I don't see it as a political statement either. The point of overtly polictical speech is for it to be noticed. That necessarily involves drawing attention to yourself. So it can involve some self promotion. Does this mean that campaign commercials are not political speech, because they are explicitly promoting themselves? And what's worse really, is if the man had simply removed the button when asked, he would have been fine. So he'd have been fine if he simply allowed himself to be censored. Umm, I believe that was his point. Just like we hand over our tweezers and nail clippers and everything else. Again, that was his point. That we are allowing ourselves to be bullied, cowed, searched, and have our property confiscated. These are the things suspects are subjected to. But he had to make a stink over it, which is why there is even a problem in the first place. No, there is a problem in the first place because we are all being treated as suspects. I understand that some of the measures taken seem silly, Not seem: are. but honestly, if we all cooperated more, the lines would go faster, the security would be more efficient, and hopefully, the goal intended, which is to make air travel safer, would be achieved. The goal is to convince people "Something Is Being Done". In your case, at least, it seems to be working. ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #110,886
7/22/03 11:53:55 AM
|
Re: No, no and no
Drewk wrote:>>The goal is to convince people "Something Is Being Done". In your case, at least, it seems to be working.<<
All I know is that we haven't had another hijacking, or another plane flown into a major US building since 9/11/01, and that tells me they must be doing something right.
Nightowl >8#
P.S. Sorry Scott, I tried quoting this properly four times, and still had unmatched something or other, so I gave up and did it this way.
"Only dead fish swim with the stream."
Linda Ellerbee
|
Post #110,899
7/22/03 12:31:17 PM
|
do you moo when you go to the airport?
I suppose cattle prods would move folks along more efficiently and faster. My question is this, if I am a terrorist planning a strike is false ID a problem? No. Is getting a weapon abourd a plane a problem? No. The problem that is being solved is to disallow people to trade tickets to each other without the airlines making a buck. That is the problem being solved here. Intimidation of passengers to allow any indignity just to be able to board that plane. That is being solved so well the airlines are failing. These things have nothing to do with safety, thwy have to do with control. I suppose you think gun registration is safer also.
thanx,
bill
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #110,900
7/22/03 12:36:00 PM
7/22/03 12:36:33 PM
|
Re: do you moo when you go to the airport?
I suppose cattle prods would move folks along more efficiently and faster. My question is this, if I am a terrorist planning a strike is false ID a problem? No. Is getting a weapon abourd a plane a problem? No. The problem that is being solved is to disallow people to trade tickets to each other without the airlines making a buck. That is the problem being solved here. Intimidation of passengers to allow any indignity just to be able to board that plane. That is being solved so well the airlines are failing. These things have nothing to do with safety, thwy have to do with control. I suppose you think gun registration is safer also. Hmm, well, I don't go to the airport much, except on occasion to pick someone up, so I don't need to moo. Mostly I hoot. ;) I don't know about gun registration, I think it's good to be able to track a weapon when it killed someone, but on the other hand, I don't know that it truly makes us safer from being killed. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
Edited by Nightowl
July 22, 2003, 12:36:33 PM EDT
|
Post #110,926
7/22/03 3:12:06 PM
|
I also haven't been trampled by any elephants since 9/11
I guess those airport security measures are working really well.
What?
You say the airport security measures have nothing whatsoever to do with my not getting trampled by an elephant?
But it hasn't happened since they started those security procedures.
Get it?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #110,960
7/22/03 5:53:18 PM
|
ROFL!
jb4
The difference between Confidence and Ego is that Confidence has respect, while Ego does not.
Candyce Burns (my wife)
|
Post #111,014
7/22/03 10:29:29 PM
|
Re: I also haven't been trampled by any elephants since 9/11
I guess those airport security measures are working really well. What? You say the airport security measures have nothing whatsoever to do with my not getting trampled by an elephant? But it hasn't happened since they started those security procedures. Get it? Honestly? No I don't get it. Because as I tried to explain in my previous post, I was afraid of crashing airplanes after 9/11. I haven't been given reason to be afraid of elephants trampling me, like I was given reason to be afraid of planes crashing into buildings. Get it? Nightowl >8# Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001. "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,019
7/22/03 10:48:29 PM
|
Why are you afraid of crashing Airplanes?
Some nutbag stands up screaming Allah is going to kill us all no one is going to wait around to have the pilot handle it. He/She is going to be killed by
the women who's husband is cheating on her and she knows it
the guy whose back has been kicked by a little kid 3 thousand times in the last minute
the guy jammed between 2 300 pounders
the lady whose nipple was examined with hoots and grunts by dumass securityt folks
the granny who only wants to get to see her grandkids one more time
me who has a legitimate reason to murder someone with their bare handsbecause I was was delayed for 16 hrs due to fuckwits who run security.
guess what,
plane lands safely. terrorist might live long nough for tial.
thanx,
bill
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #111,026
7/22/03 11:07:17 PM
|
Re: Why are you afraid of crashing Airplanes?
Well, I didn't understand most of your post or why it was relevant, sorry.
But I was afraid of airplanes crashing into my house because they crashed into the Twin Towers. Didn't matter how illogical it was that a plane would choose my house to crash into, nonetheless, that is where my fears after 9/11 manifested themselves.
Since most of your post talked about the people on the plane that would crash, I don't know how it applies to me, sorry. I was simply afraid of one crashing into my house.
Nightowl >8#
"I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,030
7/22/03 11:17:47 PM
|
Boxish to English translation.
"Why are you concerned about someone hijacking a plane and crashing it into a building? Since 9/11, if someone attempts to hijack a plane, no passenger is going to sit idly by and let the pilot and crew handle the situation. The hijacker would be attacked by the angry passengers. If the hijacker is lucky, he or she might survive the ordeal long enough to stand trial."
Thus (by my inference of boxley's post), you're safer now than you were before 9/11 due to increased vigilance by your fellow passengers - not due to the actions or statements by Department of Homeland Security.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #111,040
7/22/03 11:59:22 PM
|
Re: Boxish to English translation.
Thus (by my inference of boxley's post), you're safer now than you were before 9/11 due to increased vigilance by your fellow passengers - not due to the actions or statements by Department of Homeland Security. I agree Scott, the passengers who stop the hijackers are also part of the "placebo" concept. Basically, knowing anything whatsoever is being done to change the circumstances which led to 9/11 helps to ease my mind. And just for a moment, think in terms of the hijackers. Maybe they are also deterred not only by the security measures in place, but also the fact that now they might have to deal with angry passengers bent on stopping them. It all adds up one piece at a time to be one more protective measure. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,033
7/22/03 11:22:00 PM
|
Well do you cower in fear that cars, and cows crash into
your house? Everytime you here a siren do you crawl under the bed in case it is chasing a criminal into your abode? When you here strange noises do you quickly grab a shotgun, jack a shell into the chamber and start hunting strangers?
Fear is a good thing, it keeps us alive. Irrational fear invoked by strange events needs to be analysed and statistically evaluated as rational or hysteria. Your chances of a plane landing on your house is much greaater by pilots who suffer a heart attack in a small plane than terrorists aiming at you. So please explain why your irrational fear of terrorists require me to kiss some govt flunkies ass to get where I am going. Not picking on you, just trying to have you think unintended consequences.
thanx,
bill
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #111,044
7/23/03 12:12:50 AM
|
Re: Well do you cower in fear that cars, and cows crash into
your house? Everytime you here a siren do you crawl under the bed in case it is chasing a criminal into your abode? When you here strange noises do you quickly grab a shotgun, jack a shell into the chamber and start hunting strangers? Do you want an honest answer, because you might not like it. Yes, sirens make me jump. Loud cars make me jump. I don't crawl under the bed, but my heart pounds. I don't own a gun, but if I hear a noise, I check it out. I was taught to be afraid, which is a bad thing. My father moved here to St. Louis from a country town where you threw your front door open and had no fear of your neighbors or anything else. He was so paranoid upon moving here he promptly instilled fear in his children based on his own fear. He didn't mean to, and I know that now, but I've fought against it for years, only making little breakthroughs and thinking I've won, to have something else new take me back two steps. Fear is a good thing, it keeps us alive. Irrational fear invoked by strange events needs to be analysed and statistically evaluated as rational or hysteria. Your chances of a plane landing on your house is much greaater by pilots who suffer a heart attack in a small plane than terrorists aiming at you. So please explain why your irrational fear of terrorists require me to kiss some govt flunkies ass to get where I am going. Not picking on you, just trying to have you think unintended consequences. Fear is a good thing if it is in moderation, and not in the form of panic. I agree there. I also know my fear of a plane crashing into my house was irrational. I stated that. I also dealt with my counselor about it in great detail. Unfortunately, it was a major thing, 9/11 and it invoked many irrational fears in many people, not just me. I don't require you to do anything, I simply said the extra security measures give me some degree of comfort. I know you aren't picking on me, I know you want me to think about it. But I have. I thought about planes, planes crashing, air safety, 9/11 for months and months before I was finally able to get past it and live normally. Maybe I have too much trust in the people who are there to protect us, but I'd rather trust them than fear them, if that makes any sense. I deal with my fears, every day, of many things. And I've come a long way, really, in some of them. But the trauma of 9/11 still remains one of the worst things I've encountered, and seen and lived through, and I suspect it always will, unless I live to see something inherently worse. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #110,959
7/22/03 5:52:01 PM
|
You have an interesting sense of history
All I know is that we haven't had another hijacking, or another plane flown into a major US building since 9/11/01, and that tells me they must be doing something right. Hoo-fuckin-ray, no hijacking in about one-and-a-half-years in the US. Of course, we didn't have a hijacking in the US for at least that long in the US before 11Sep01 (I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm sure the collective memory of the LRPD can come up with the exact facts with several links to back it up...its a wonderful toy!). So what's yer point? That sheep prevent hijackings? jb4
The difference between Confidence and Ego is that Confidence has respect, while Ego does not.
Candyce Burns (my wife)
|
Post #111,013
7/22/03 10:26:12 PM
|
Re: You have an interesting sense of history
Hoo-fuckin-ray, no hijacking in about one-and-a-half-years in the US. Of course, we didn't have a hijacking in the US for at least that long in the US before 11Sep01 (I don't have the exact numbers, but I'm sure the collective memory of the LRPD can come up with the exact facts with several links to back it up...its a wonderful toy!). So what's yer point? That sheep prevent hijackings? No, my point is, I guess that I have seen a result. But based on my actual use of the airline industry, I probably have no true basis for deciding anything about it. Bottom line is I don't have the delays and annoyances, because I do not fly. Perhaps if I did fly, I would feel differently. And I don't know what you mean by sheep, to be honest. But I also believe that any level of comfort that can be gained by the concept of "Someone doing something about the situation" is also based on the feelings of the person getting the comfort. In my case, I had traumatic nightmares for months after 9/11, afraid that a plane would crash into my house. I know that was an "unreasonable" fear, but nonetheless, that is what 9/11 caused me to deal with. It took me MONTHS before I could stop listening for planes, stop watching for planes, and finally sleep comfortably. And a lot of that comfort was dervived from the measures the airlines and Homeland Security took to protect us. Maybe it was like a placebo or something, really didn't do anything in particular, but caused me the ability to relax and believe I was safe, regardless. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,025
7/22/03 11:05:05 PM
|
Out of the mouths of -
Here you have succinctly summed-up the vast majority of in-place placebos constructed by this Admin: Maybe it was like a placebo or something, really didn't do anything in particular, but caused me the ability to relax and believe I was safe An almost brilliant comment, if I do say so - if you indeed understand the implications of what you said. And were you to take the time and attention to examine the PATRIOT Act and a few thousand other words that have entered our vocabulary since 9/11, why then.. just possibly you might find somewhere an association with the word sheep. Maybe not. Or to put it more simply, safety? [whatever a 'life' of perfect safety might be, in your ken] VS the appearance-of safety. More would be telling. Ashton
|
Post #111,031
7/22/03 11:18:30 PM
|
Re: Out of the mouths of -
Here you have succinctly summed-up the vast majority of in-place placebos constructed by this Admin:Maybe it was like a placebo or something, really didn't do anything in particular, but caused me the ability to relax and believe I was safe An almost brilliant comment, if I do say so - if you indeed understand the implications of what you said. And were you to take the time and attention to examine the PATRIOT Act and a few thousand other words that have entered our vocabulary since 9/11, why then.. just possibly you might find somewhere an association with the word sheep. Maybe not. Okay. I know what you mean now. You mean do I follow orders or obey the laws, and the answer is basically, yes. I'm not a person who makes waves often, although I do defend my position when I feel it is being violated or attacked. I figure the government must know at least better than I, what should be done, when I can't even barely comprehend what all is going on politically. So yes, in that sense, I'm a sheep and hey, sheep live long happy lives, only giving their wool on occasion, where wolves are hunted down and shot. ;) Or to put it more simply, safety? [whatever a 'life' of perfect safety might be, in your ken] VS the appearance-of safety. More would be telling. Okay, you're saying I should not let the appearance of saftey lull me into a false sense of security, and believe me, I don't completely do that. In fact, I am still very nervous at times regarding the events of 9/11. But it still gave me some measure of comfort to know something was being done, just like my security alarm system gives me some measure of comfort that I'm safe in my own house. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,035
7/22/03 11:31:46 PM
|
Two words re safe sheep____lamb chops
|
Post #111,045
7/23/03 12:22:29 AM
|
Re: Two words re safe sheep____lamb chops
Not always. Some are bred purely for their wool. :)
Nightowl >8#
"I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,054
7/23/03 12:39:43 AM
|
Dear God...
Please tell me you don't vote. That would be too depressing to contemplate.
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #111,057
7/23/03 12:45:00 AM
|
Re: Dear God...
Please tell me you don't vote. That would be too depressing to contemplate. Didn't you read my post to Ashton about that very topic? :) I rarely vote. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,062
7/23/03 12:51:49 AM
|
Re: Dear God...
I am gratified, madame, beyond my power to express this. Believe me to be
very, very cordially yours,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #111,061
7/23/03 12:50:54 AM
|
Re: Dear God...
And furthermore, sir, why does my one single vote matter so much? My father used to tell me that all the time. I HAD TO VOTE, it was IMPERATIVE. Well, I don't get it. Millions of people vote, and no election I've ever seen that mattered was won by one ballot.
So don't worry about my vote or non-vote. Worry about the millions or thousands or whatever number of people there are that will vote the way you worry about.
Nightowl >8#
"I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,065
7/23/03 1:01:58 AM
|
nightowl wonders
"why does my one single vote matter so much?"
Your one single vote matters hardly at all. The votes of millions of equally ill-informed enfranchised residents of this allegedly great land matter a great deal. I don't wish to be unkind, but your social and political observations as I have observed them to date strike me as appallingly naïve, even childlike. I can respect those political adversaries whose arguments, even when I violently disagree with them, give some evidence of rational calculations behind them. Your reasonings, my dear nightowl, would not do credit to a twelve year-old. I do applaud, however, your disinclination to vote.
cordially,
Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #111,066
7/23/03 1:10:23 AM
|
Re: nightowl wonders
I don't wish to be unkind, but your social and political observations as I have observed them to date strike me as appallingly naive, even childlike. I can respect those political adversaries whose arguments, even when I violently disagree with them, give some evidence of rational calculations behind them. Your reasonings, my dear nightowl, would not do credit to a twelve year-old. I do applaud, however, your disinclination to vote. Ok, granted on the political end. I was just never interested in politics, and still am not, and it's very difficult for me to understand. So yes, I'm sure I have about a grade school level of comprehension for that. As for my social observations, I'm not sure what you mean by that one. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,182
7/23/03 6:57:11 PM
|
NO... what I meant was...
...that Sheep are willing to be led (actually, "herded" is the operative term) to whatever fate, Macheavelian [sic] or otherwise, that their "leaders" (read: shepherds) lead them into, and will quitely accept their fate without so much as a whimper (except perhaps, at the very end....).
Sheep don't question whether they are being duped, or led down the primrose path, because they feel "safe" when they are being herded somewhere.
Airport "security", as it is being practiced today, is so much handwaving. It has been repeatedly shown to be wastetime, ineffective window-dressing that does nothing to address the real problem of securing the airways against those evil-doers would would use said airways to do evil. Yet you, and so many others, are willing -- indeed eager -- to allow this inneffective handwaving exercise in the name of "heightend security" because you "feel so much safer" now that the Government "is doing something about security".
Sheep!
Get it now?
jb4
The difference between Confidence and Ego is that Confidence has respect, while Ego does not.
Candyce Burns (my wife)
|
Post #111,189
7/23/03 8:57:07 PM
7/23/03 8:58:18 PM
|
Re: NO... what I meant was...
...that Sheep are willing to be led (actually, "herded" is the operative term) to whatever fate, Macheavelian [sic] or otherwise, that their "leaders" (read: shepherds) lead them into, and will quitely accept their fate without so much as a whimper (except perhaps, at the very end....). Sheep don't question whether they are being duped, or led down the primrose path, because they feel "safe" when they are being herded somewhere. Well then I am most definitely NOT a sheep. If that was the case, I would still be employed today at a job I loved, rather than be a victim of having refused to do something I was told which was immoral and against the policy, and having lost a fight against a major university which ultimately cost me my job, my confidence in employment, and my self-confidence, some of the latter, which i have finally reacquired. Airport "security", as it is being practiced today, is so much handwaving. It has been repeatedly shown to be wastetime, ineffective window-dressing that does nothing to address the real problem of securing the airways against those evil-doers would would use said airways to do evil. Yet you, and so many others, are willing -- indeed eager -- to allow this inneffective handwaving exercise in the name of "heightend security" because you "feel so much safer" now that the Government "is doing something about security". I think the only reason I allow it is I have no say on it, am not part of it, do not fly and therefore, never considered it on any serious level. Make sense? I didn't say I did anything to cause it to be, only that knowing it happens gave me a level of comfort. There is a difference in being actively involved in causing something to happen, and simply gaining something from it happening. Get it now? Yes, but I still do not consider myself a sheep, based on your first paragraphs here, because I always question anything that directly affects me if I think it's wrong. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
Edited by Nightowl
July 23, 2003, 08:58:18 PM EDT
|
Post #111,380
7/24/03 11:43:05 PM
|
AHAH! an almost tenured professor
suspected education when I saw that loverly car you drive.
thanx,
bill
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #111,389
7/25/03 12:11:56 AM
|
Re: AHAH! an almost tenured professor
suspected education when I saw that loverly car you drive. Thanks Box. I do adore my car. :) But I was not a professor, was just on my way to becoming a History major... But I do have a 2 year degree in Communications, Creative Writing. So yes, I'd say I'm fairly educated... just never completed the 4 year thing and may not, don't know. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,226
7/24/03 7:39:37 AM
|
Retirement package still includes mint jelly...
|
Post #111,311
7/24/03 4:52:49 PM
|
**chuckle**
jb4
The difference between Confidence and Ego is that Confidence has respect, while Ego does not.
Candyce Burns (my wife)
|
Post #111,320
7/24/03 5:17:38 PM
|
Oh You Kid..!______(speak goatish?) 23 Skiddoo
|
Post #111,499
7/25/03 5:35:15 PM
8/21/07 6:03:03 AM
|
What I know
All I know is that we haven't had another hijacking, or another plane flown into a major US building since 9/11/01, and that tells me they must be doing something right. We know more than that. For instance, we know that the technique used to hijack the airplanes no longer works once people have expanded their sphere of possible outcomes. In fact, that technique failed as soon as the passengers on the 4th plane learned about one of the other planes from a cell phone call. They acted to foil the terrorists (at the cost of their own lives). If they had known a little earlier, I doubt the terrorists would have gained access to the cockpit and the plane would likely have landed safely. That's what we know. Prior to the first plane hitting a building - this sort of action was inconceivable to the average civilian. This is no longer true and it will never be true again. The other thing I know is I have a right to personal grooming tools and I'm fed up with buying new ones everytime I get on a plane.
Smalltalk is dangerous. It is a drug. My advice to you would be don't try it; it could ruin your life. Once you take the time to learn it (to REALLY learn it) you will see that there is nothing out there (yet) to touch it. Of course, like all drugs, how dangerous it is depends on your character. It may be that once you've got to this stage you'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to "go back" to other languages and, if you are forced to, you might become an embittered character constantly muttering ascerbic comments under your breath. Who knows, you may even have to quit the software industry altogether because nothing else lives up to your new expectations.
--AndyBower
|
Post #110,958
7/22/03 5:40:48 PM
|
Or, perhaps, one less time
And what's worse really, is if the man had simply removed the button when asked, he would have been fine. Just like we hand over our tweezers and nail clippers and everything else. But he had to make a stink over it, which is why there is even a problem in the first place. Can you say, "Baaaaah!"? I knew you could.... jb4
The difference between Confidence and Ego is that Confidence has respect, while Ego does not.
Candyce Burns (my wife)
|
Post #110,966
7/22/03 6:19:12 PM
|
Please..
just don't register to vote, OK? I mean.. there's so much More Interesting stuff for you to do, so many expectations to meet and - now you're safe from attack too: they are getting ALL of the tweezers and nailclippers - virtually 100.0%. And soon the cattle-prods will speed up even Your infrequent airport trip, to pick up a woolly biped traveller (if he isn't detoured to Guantanamo.. because he looks funny).
Safety.. don't abandon the Republic for anything Less!
(Remember too: You must Love Them; it is not enough to just Obey Them\ufffd)
So now, nothing can go wrong..
go wrong..
go
Thanks,
Ashton
PS - do you read things like books? Older than '02, say?
You might enjoy the tale of one Winston Smith - in a today little-known book by a minor author. It's called 1984 - and yes, you're right: we're long past that date. So it's probably obsolescent already.
Just a thought. It's a pretty long book though, so - -
|
Post #111,015
7/22/03 10:39:50 PM
|
Re: Please..
just don't register to vote, OK? I mean.. there's so much More Interesting stuff for you to do, so many expectations to meet and - now you're safe from attack too: they are getting ALL of the tweezers and nailclippers - virtually 100.0%. And soon the cattle-prods will speed up even Your infrequent airport trip, to pick up a woolly biped traveller (if he isn't detoured to Guantanamo.. because he looks funny). Well first of all, I am registered to vote, but I rarely do, because I can't comprehend the political parties' platforms most of the time. I have voted in a couple Presidential elections, but that's the most voting I tend to do. I believe if I vote when I don't know what I'm doing, I'm just doing worse than not voting. PS - do you read things like books? Older than '02, say? You might enjoy the tale of one Winston Smith - in a today little-known book by a minor author. It's called 1984 - and yes, you're right: we're long past that date. So it's probably obsolescent already. Just a thought. It's a pretty long book though, so - - I read all the time, all kinds of books. I read 1984 years and years ago in High School, and I didn't like it. I'm not big on anything futuristic where technology rules. Government monitoring people using extreme technology is included in that. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,042
7/23/03 12:04:36 AM
|
Point == missed.
I read 1984 years and years ago in High School, and I didn't like it. I'm not big on anything futuristic where technology rules. There's a line in 1984... (Paraphrased) "I'm not sure it's 1984. In fact, I have no idea when it is." Orwell was writing about real political events occuring in 1948. The story wasn't about the technology - it was about a world where the government dominated every aspect of our lives. Something, that thanks to the vast majority of sheeple out there willing to roll over and ignore George Orwell's warning to us. Government monitoring people using extreme technology is included in that. Then by your inaction, you are aiding to damn the rest of us who seek the pursuit of freedom, instead of slavery. You have forsaken your potential as a human being. And though you hold the keys to ruin of everything I see/With every prison blown to dust, my enemies walk free/Though all the kingdoms turn to sand and fall into the sea/ I'm mad about you I'm mad about you
|
Post #111,046
7/23/03 12:24:15 AM
|
Re: Point == missed.
Then by your inaction, you are aiding to damn the rest of us who seek the pursuit of freedom, instead of slavery. You have forsaken your potential as a human being. Huh? Just because I prefer not to read books or see movies where technology rules? Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,075
7/23/03 2:43:17 AM
|
Technology?
The stone axe is 'technology'. We are tool-making apes: the %-difference between a Republicrat and a chimpanzee is IIRC <0.1% in the DNA coding (and lots of that contains junk-nodes, so the differences might be smaller yet). What we do is 'make things' -- most often without much concern for the "unintended consequences". Technology is just a fancy name for a Much Larger Way of making useful/not-so-useful/destructive things, none of which much change the meat-aspect at all:
we're herd animals and pack animals.. with always a small assortment of odd ones who refuse to join any organization as would Take.. people like them.
If you had imagined that 1984 had anything much to do with technology (except as theatre decoration), then it's not even a question: you missed it. All of it.
I will grant that you are more aware of that which you don't know - than many, and I offer Brownie points for your forthrightness. I haven't walked in your moccasins or experienced the early conditioning of your parents, so I can't guess whether your current disinterest in what-you-call politics is inborn - or? a result of rather too-few hours of being read to and possibly.. having been ensconced in front of a Tee Vee for many hours - this in lieu of sincere adult Attention and efforts to wake you up, and keep you awake.
But there's always hope. 'Politics' is supposed to be about ~ every aspect of the "social contract" we are born into, yet - Can Change - if, and when 'we' (enough of 'us') see a need to. To be not-interested in "how you live" / the rules and their effects - as determine all options available to you: is to freely surrender your voice along with the chances which you might have helped create for yourself and for others.
Those books, which you have also found to be of little interest, are the means by which we are able to evade mistakes - for learning just how many and what kind were already made - it's a great time and energy saver, you see? And it's never too late to begin catching up. And since this IS America, the land of Disneyland Dreams Tee Vee and large noise-background all the time: it wouldn't be long before you surpassed the experience of many of your contemporaries. So.. "catching up" really isn't all that hard.
There are many libraries (for a while yet) and librarians are a special breed: they love to answer sincere queries and point people to decent short-cuts to catching up - whatever the topic. Librarians are among the more underappreciated people around, especially in this now post-literate era.
Still and all - no one can supply Interest. That comes from inside or it doesn't. There are no 'shoulds' about that, though. Simply, those who do have Interests find the perpetually disinterested to be - boring at best. This may be why groups form around Interests. And the others go to chat rooms to say everything about nothing.
A member of one group will not be very comfortable in the other, but people are generally more than happy whenever a person "wants to change groups?" - it implies that something is Alive there. The snide remarks cease, under such circumstances :-)
Lastly, as to 'books' - [link|http://www.classicnote.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/fahrenheit/| Fahrenheit 451] (the kindling temperature of newsprint) may give you an idea of the appreciation for books in a situation which -- seems eerily close-to where we seem to be heading. It's available in a superb movie or best of all: in print by the author. It's a rollicking good tale, in any case - but as always: you have to supply its 'meaning'.
Bon appetit,
Ashton
who once.. had read neither 1984 nor Fahrenheit 451. Too.
|
Post #111,116
7/23/03 10:49:00 AM
|
Re: Technology?
The stone axe is 'technology'. ... Technology is just a fancy name for a Much Larger Way of making useful/not-so-useful/ destructive things, none of which much change the meat-aspect at all: Perhaps I should have clarified. Computer technology. Yes, I know I'm typing on a computer right now, but honestly, there was a time when I was terrified of computers, I believed they were capable of taking me over and running my life and everyone else's just by sitting there. Now I'm smarter, but things like computer controlled houses still give me the heebie jeebies. I was shown what computers could do, i.e. make words appear on a screen and then come out on paper, and that is what drew me to them finally, and allowed me to trust them some, the desire to put words on screen and paper. If you had imagined that 1984 had anything much to do with technology (except as theatre decoration), then it's not even a question: you missed it. All of it. Oh well, I read it years ago, and I was never big on sci fi futuristic stuff, i.e. the end of the world, nuclear destruction, or farming the moon. I like some Sci Fi stuff but the hard core sci fi just bored and confused me, as a rule, with a few notable exceptions like The Forever War, The War Of The Worlds, etc. I will grant that you are more aware of that which you don't know - than many, and I offer Brownie points for your forthrightness. I haven't walked in your moccasins or experienced the early conditioning of your parents, so I can't guess whether your current disinterest in what-you-call politics is inborn - or? a result of rather too-few hours of being read to and possibly.. having been ensconced in front of a Tee Vee for many hours - this in lieu of sincere adult Attention and efforts to wake you up, and keep you awake. I'll have you know I read/and still do, alot more than you give me credit for. I was addicted to TV once as a child and decided it was a bad thing. I weaned myself away from hours and hours of TV one step at a time, till I cut down an entire day to night viewing to about 10 programs. Now I currently watch about 5 types of TV, including many daily newscasts because I'm very interested in news. I watch one Soap Opera, and it is the #1 on the list, and I watch a couple drama shows, no sitcoms, no silly reality shows, and no talk shows other than Dr. Phil and occasionally David Letterman. I am a history buff, and politics always intertwine with History, but honestly it gets too jumbled for me to completely ever understand, and I simply got tired of it and focused on the military and other actions regarding History, rather than most of the political stuff. I have tried to understand politics, found it more frustrating than it's worth, and still have trouble remembering what is left and right wing, and etc. But there's always hope. 'Politics' is supposed to be about ~ every aspect of the "social contract" we are born into, yet - Can Change - if, and when 'we' (enough of 'us') see a need to. To be not-interested in "how you live" / the rules and their effects - as determine all options available to you: is to freely surrender your voice along with the chances which you might have helped create for yourself and for others. I realize that by not voting, I don't have a right to complain if I don't like the circumstances. So, I don't complain, I cope. Honestly, even when I DO vote and it doesn't go the way I would like, I still don't complain. I make the best of it. Those books, which you have also found to be of little interest, are the means by which we are able to evade mistakes - for learning just how many and what kind were already made - it's a great time and energy saver, you see? And it's never too late to begin catching up. And since this IS America, the land of Disneyland Dreams Tee Vee and large noise-background all the time: it wouldn't be long before you surpassed the experience of many of your contemporaries. So.. "catching up" really isn't all that hard. There are many libraries (for a while yet) and librarians are a special breed: they love to answer sincere queries and point people to decent short-cuts to catching up - whatever the topic. Librarians are among the more underappreciated people around, especially in this now post-literate era. I am in love with books. I probably have more books in my house than most people, probably akin to a small library, and I honestly would appreciate you not making assumptions about whether I read or not. I read almost everything, all the time, including my daily newspapers, and I appreciate the written word over any other media, including the computer. I wanted to be a librarian once, but someone made sure that could never happen without a great deal of repair so I lost some of my respect for the genre. But I know librarians answer questions, and I also am very good at seeking answers on the internet, through what I call "fishing" However, I have to know what I'm seeking answers to, and some of the things said in here aren't clear enough to look up, so I ask John and he assists me in paraphrasing much of it. Still and all - no one can supply Interest. That comes from inside or it doesn't. There are no 'shoulds' about that, though. Simply, those who do have Interests find the perpetually disinterested to be - boring at best. This may be why groups form around Interests. And the others go to chat rooms to say everything about nothing. Like Math, which I took, took again, took a third time and still cannot master without doing each problem 5 times and taking the answer I get the most times, I choose not to deal with most political issues, because of the level of frustration it causes me. It's not a matter of just interest, it's a matter of frustration, and having no serious need to understand it since I do not vote about every little issue in my government or community, and because even if you know what the politicians are saying, you never know if they are telling the truth, so why bother. So If I'm boring because I don't care much for politics, I am sorry, I don't usually get into any sort of conversation about this but I felt I had something to contribute, and I did. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,187
7/23/03 8:02:07 PM
|
Well, that clears it up.
You might be surprised to hear - I bought my Osborne1, the first practical toy computer - for exactly the same purpose: words. A Wang\ufffd 'wordprocessor' {ugly Idea, That} was a bloated, overpriced inaccessible thing - and soon.. Wang died.
(I despise spreadsheets - to me they epitomize the reduction of All Life to the simplistic, juvenile mindset of a bottom line) and further symbolize the diseducation of the basketweaving CPA/Econ courses. (A radical Capitalist idea of a pretend- Ed-ja-Kay'-shun)
Many folks re-read books, periodically. Shakespeare is the obv. example - since, as we grow, occasionally we even grow Up. Since you're older now, possibly another read of both mentioned books.. might permit you to skip the mantra, sciencefiction-Idon'tlike Thosethings-SoIwon'tlikeThis
and read for comprehension of the Society Matters.. maybe along with a quick reread of the Constitution of the US and especially, The Bill of Rights. For perspective: Then (a few years ago, even) and Now. (Those last two are pretty brief.)
If none of it still makes sense, turns on any Lights then? Well, you tried. But as always: your call.
Oh: indeed, people lie all the time! especially to themselves (practice makes perfect). Your task is to look for the symptoms and each day get better at that - or just.. never mind.
Ashton
|
Post #111,193
7/23/03 9:07:48 PM
|
Re: Well, that clears it up.
You might be surprised to hear - I bought my Osborne1, the first practical toy computer - for exactly the same purpose: words. A Wang? 'wordprocessor' {ugly Idea, That} was a bloated, overpriced inaccessible thing - and soon.. Wang died. Kewl! I started with an Apple IIE, myself and I still have it and it still works. :) (I despise spreadsheets - to me they epitomize the reduction of All Life to the simplistic, juvenile mindset of a bottom line) and further symbolize the diseducation of the basketweaving CPA/Econ courses. (A radical Capitalist idea of a pretend- Ed-ja-Kay'-shun) I only like Spreadsheets because I can make them alphabetize and organize. I haven't yet figured out Access to the point where I can manipulate it like I would like, but I have learned a lot more about tables in Word that work similar to the spreadsheets in regards to columns and rows. Many folks re-read books, periodically. Shakespeare is the obv. example - since, as we grow, occasionally we even grow Up. Since you're older now, possibly another read of both mentioned books.. might permit you to skip the mantra, sciencefiction-Idon'tlike Thosethings-SoIwon'tlikeThis I suppose I can consider it, but I'll be honest. I have probably over 100 books waiting to be read. I have books about historical things like ship wrecks, and the Oklahoma Bombing, and 9/11 to read, books about jobs and coping with mean bosses and dealing with people on the job to read, a number of Star Wars books to read, several self-help books to read, including the recent ones about Migraines, a book I'm still reading and dealing with with my counselor about Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, and many many more books from movies, or about life events, or just funny in general. I'm also still reading "The Forever Peace" with my husband out loud, which is the sequel to the "Forever War." Not trying to be a smart aleck, but I have a lot to read someday, and I am still acquiring more all the time. That doesn't even touch the magazines and other miscellaneous things I get or am given to read. I probably have about 12 books started right now, as I read them in various places and at various times. I'll be honest though, one of the reasons I stopped reading hard core Sci Fi was it gave me nightmares. And that's also one of the reasons I've hesitated to read some of the historical things, and only read them during the daytime, so I don't go to bed with say, the World Trade Disaster on my mind. and read for comprehension of the Society Matters.. maybe along with a quick reread of the Constitution of the US and especially, The Bill of Rights. For perspective: Then (a few years ago, even) and Now. (Those last two are pretty brief.) I believe I reread the constitution just last year when John and I looked something up, but I can't swear it. If none of it still makes sense, turns on any Lights then? Well, you tried. But as always: your call. Yep, and my main goal this next 6 months is to try and get back in the employment game... although I must admit, I'm still very hesitant and very scared. Nightowl >8# "I learned to be the door, instead of the mat!"
Comment by Nightowl
|
Post #111,051
7/23/03 12:33:15 AM
|
Re: One more time.
I live in the UK. Unlike the Americans present (specifically YOU), I've spent my entire life in a country that's been in a state of low-level civil war (any NORAID contributors present? Just want to say, "Gee, *thanks*, y'all"). It's only in the past few years that the IRA have stopped blowing things up.
I'll emphasise one point for you. YOU ARE NOT UNDER TERRORIST THREAT.
The horrifying events of September 11, 2001, were a one-off; never to be repeated. It is to your eternal shame that you as a nation have allowed the Bush/Rumsfeld administration to use this anomolous event to start gutting the Constitution wholesale in order that they cling to power.
Many Americans have pointed out that the UK doesn't have a written constitution (it does, it's just not in one document) and that we're poorer for it. Until the current administration started turning the USA into a one-party pigopolarchy, I'd have agreed.
When security takes nail-clippers and tweezers from you at the airport, they're not safeguarding you; they're violating your freedom.
Next, they'll take some other item, and another, and another. Then you won't be able to take any hand-luggage at all.
Then, you'll have to seek approval for your journey.
Then you won't be able to travel at all.
Yes, this is hyperbolic. I'm being dramatic to make a point, which is this:
America is becoming that which she despises.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #111,059
7/23/03 12:47:19 AM
|
Right. On.
pwhysall observes: America is becoming that which she despises. Has. Become. cordially, Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist.
|
Post #111,076
7/23/03 3:04:51 AM
|
Thanks, Peter.
It must be transparent - looking from outside the intentionally-induced madness of this unelected rehime.
GPL'd? I'd like to quote it (exactly). But usual care re any zIWE linking.
Ashton
|
Post #111,600
7/26/03 9:25:18 PM
|
Dead fish get through the line faster
----
Sometime you the windshield, sometime you the bug, sometime you the driver and you turn on the windshield washer and keep going.
|
Post #110,882
7/22/03 11:20:09 AM
|
button wasn't created for the article.
The button, which was created by political activist Emi Koyama, says "Suspected Terrorist". Checking [link|http://eminism.org/|her site] you can see a number of other buttons in the store(though this particle button is offline due to bandwith issues). I don't agree that this was political speech. I see, it's only political speech of you say it is. Darrell Spice, Jr. [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #110,894
7/22/03 12:10:21 PM
|
Sigh
First you jump me for being hypocritical. I have pointed out (several times now), using phrases like "I believe" and "IMO", my reasoning behind why I don't agree this is political speech (thus negating the charge of hypocrisy). I even say, regarding my belief, "you can argue with this...", to which, you make a good point about the button's creation (which came first, the button or the article?).
And then you make the accusation that once I define it as non-political, I'm closed to further argument. The problem with that is, until just now, you (and others) neglected to *make* that argument.
So I'm a hypocrite (except I'm not (in this case at least)), and I'm obstinately sure of myself against all evidence (which may be true, but you've hardly given me a chance to show that).
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,898
7/22/03 12:26:06 PM
|
why the distinction?
why should a company be able to decide to do business with somebody based on their non-political speech, but not be allowed to make the same decision over political speech?
Darrell Spice, Jr. [link|http://www.spiceware.org/cgi-bin/spa.pl?album=./Artistic%20Overpass|Artistic Overpass]\n[link|http://www.spiceware.org/|SpiceWare] - We don't do Windows, it's too much of a chore
|
Post #110,913
7/22/03 1:53:08 PM
|
Good question
A different topic though. And it's not a distinction I make. Allow me to explain. In this case the very real concern of flight attendants over hijacking color their reactions. Even if "Suspected Terrorist" was a recognized slogan of a political protest group, it would still be problematic on an airplane. As for a business refusing service to a customer (not quite the same as the Dixie Chicks example you brought up earlier), within certain legal constraints, they can do it at will. The business might get picketed or otherwise protested and lose sales. If the reason for the denial of service is because of political speech, they can still refuse the service. And I can protest that refusal. They are within their legal rights to refuse service as I am within mine to convince others to stop patronizing that business. why should a company be able to decide to do business with somebody based on their non-political speech, but not be allowed to make the same decision over political speech? As I said, good question. Not my position, but a good question. It's not about being "allowed" to refuse service or not. It's about accepting the fallout from that decision. I can disagree with it, I won't say they aren't allowed to make it. -----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,971
7/22/03 6:57:48 PM
|
Good question, but the *wrong* one IMO
They are within their legal rights to refuse service as I am within mine to convince others to stop patronizing that business. In general I agree with this. That is why I support the rights of businesses to discriminate based on color. And the rights of informed citizens to picket and/or boycott the business. The question is, in the case of airlines are there common carrier laws that prohibit airlines in particular from doing so? It wouldn't surprise me if various Supreme Court decisions have instead established this as precedent in the absence of legislation. If the latter is the case, this raises the constitutional issue of whether freedom of speech issues outweigh whatever protections are afforded by common carrier findings. All I can [link|http://www.aviation-law-lawyers.com/pgs/commercial.html|find] about the definition of/requirements for common carriers is: Under federal law, beyond the specific and technical standards required for aircraft fitness, pilot licensing, etc., a common carrier owes the highest degree of care for the safety of its passengers, reasonably consistent with the practical operation of the airline's business. According to that link the definition is in Chapter 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 121 and 135, but I can't find the text of those regs online. Could one of our pilots help out? ===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #110,973
7/22/03 7:03:58 PM
|
Ept-LRPD: "Safety is our first concern! Actually, meat
is our first concern, safety is second."
Coffee? Tea? or Me?? -Why.. it's Traditional . .
|
Post #110,975
7/22/03 7:27:47 PM
|
Couldn't let this go by
In general I agree with this. That is why I support the rights of businesses to discriminate based on color. And the rights of informed citizens to picket and/or boycott the business
Please explain.
|
Post #110,976
7/22/03 7:33:55 PM
|
See, e.g., 87073.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=87073|87073] gives some of his views on this. And I think he discussed this during the ezIWeThey days too.
There's more there than a cursory glance might lead you to believe. It's well reasoned too, though I don't know if I agree with all of it.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #110,985
7/22/03 8:07:01 PM
|
Thanks for finding the link
The does pretty much sum it up. But to sum up the summation ...
Either I am allowed to own private property or not. If society is allowed to dictate (through law) the rules for use of my property we suffer tyranny of the majority. In Birmingham, Alabama in 1950, society, through law, would have prohibited me from serving black and white customers at the same lunch counter. Sometimes society is wrong.
Our defense against this is -- or rather should be -- that each citizen can make his own rules for his own property/business,[1] as long as those rules don't directly harm another, or deny them their rights. And citizens are then free to patronize this business or not, and to organize protests againtst these rules.
As this applies to airlines, if they are privately owned[2] they should be free to set their own rules, and citizens should be free to protest those rules.
All that said, I think the interesting question is whether there is legislation or precedent spelling out the responsibilites of "common carriers". If there are guidelines that common carriers must serve all comers who pay the advertised price without discrimination, and if these guidelines are based on protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights, then as I said freedom of speech would be weighed against those rights.
[1] Business is just a type of property. My position is not based on the concept of incorporation -- which I believe has been stretched far beyond its intent -- but on property rights.
[2] In this context I include publicly traded companies. "Private" simply means "not government owned/taxpayer funded".
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #110,986
7/22/03 8:16:39 PM
|
So then.. what about Government Subsidized biznesses?
When Chrysler held out its cap a couple times (and yes - Surprisingly! - actually paid it back with interest). What about Government subsidies of farm(er)s, tobacco-planters (!) and a list of thousands:
While they are being funded by US/"us" - should other standards apply? And if not, why not?
I think.. you're just polishing a tar baby - in seeking to relate 'property rights' to All of Life - that's a CPA- Econ-think kinda project IMO. It's also the template for most PNAC / Neoconman deconstructions of honesty, decency and other words with inescapable connotations across all scales. (I dunno if you can shellac a tar baby -?-)
Ashton
Bring mob rule back home.
Rehire the Vigilantes - at least you know who's under the sheet you're shooting at!
|
Post #110,991
7/22/03 8:29:35 PM
|
Good point
If the business accepts a government subsidy then they should follow the same standards as the government. So if the government doesn't allow discrimination then neither should anyone accepting their money. And this does indeed include all (most? I'm pretty sure it's all) of the major airlines.
But you clearly have a problem with my main point, that private businesses should be allowed to exercize property rights. You seem to make the distinction that personal freedoms are somehow distinct from property rights. Please explain how?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #110,995
7/22/03 8:37:16 PM
|
Private water company
No government.
No subsidies.
Decides to stop selling water to blacks.
Their homes become worthless.
This is an extreme of the economic manipulation possible based on your viewpoint.
|
Post #110,999
7/22/03 8:59:28 PM
|
Two answers
First is that enough people would have a problem with this that it couldn't last. Even apartheid came down eventually. I refuse to believe enough of the population would condone such behavior for it to go on indefinitely.
Second is that I allow for the possibility that some services should be publicly held. Is that privately held water company a hypothetical or does such a thing exist? How do/would they guarantee rights of way across property they don't own? How could anything we currently view as a utility (power, water, phone) exist without government enforcement of their rights of way?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #111,006
7/22/03 9:27:04 PM
|
Why?
Enough people?
Nah.
I'd say there are huge swaths of the population who would love it.
Don't forget the American dream.
A million blacks swimming back to Africa with a Jew under each arm.
Right of way?
Purchased, done deal, no issue.
Fully paid off all the required pieces of the governent.
Isolated development, of which they are the only source
of water.
No wells.
Hell, they can even own the damn road in my example.
Such things have happened in "company towns".
The only thing they don't own are 1/2 the houses in the development,
owned by the blacks, who they decide not to sell water to any more.
Yes or No: Do you support their "right" to do that?
|
Post #111,021
7/22/03 11:00:59 PM
|
Hey you can swim last time I checked
if the armpit smell bothers you :-)
You are liable to be sued civilly if denied equal protection, a governmental entity cannot criminalise failure to desegragate. Governments MUST treat all equal or face federal criminal penalties.
thanx,
bill
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
|
Post #111,089
7/23/03 8:24:08 AM
|
How can "company towns" exist?
The only reasons companies are able to grow so large is the protection afforded by incormporation, a legal fiction enforced by law. We, through our elected representatives, have decided to allow this fiction. Then we try, through these same representatives, to pile layer upon layer of regulation upon these companies to restrict how they may act.
Wouldn't it be simpler to rethink the whole concept of incorporation? Had Union Carbide officers been held personally liable for the Bhopal disaster, it is likely the next set of executives would have exercized more care. Instead we pass on to coporate officers all the benefits and rights, without any of the liabilities.
So in one sense I agree with you. If we were to eliminate restrictions on what corporations can do without introducing personal accountability, it could be as bad as you suggest. But IMO we are using one bad idea to try to solve the problems created by another one.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #111,018
7/22/03 10:43:49 PM
|
Veolia (nee Vivendi) and Suez are 2 of the biggest.
This week's Economist has a survey on water - [link|http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1906846|Priceless]. They argue that governments often do a very poor job in water.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #111,037
7/22/03 11:48:45 PM
|
Re: Veolia (nee Vivendi) and Suez are 2 of the biggest.
Yessss.. I recall a few months back, a most intelligent exploration of that very issue - I think.. by a woman assoc. with the Grameen Bank. Delhi scholastic accent. Overall though, this particularly al punte NPR broadcast was about a conference, during which several fine speakers gave concise rebuttals to the current Corporatization Plan for {those helpless folks in} the Third World. A few rose to subtle-Tom-Lehrer heights. Missed any web ref, even while listening for such :(
IIRC one biggie was the stark recitation of ENRON's India power-$$ grab via 'funding' [but not really] that power plant, while also indenturing most in the region for.. a couple generations of grossly overpriced 'power'. Ah the biz-power to disempower folks through massive dissembling. But then, near-at-home: we have Longhorn, so -
The rest of the world doesn't have to become much.. smarter to - tangle assholes effectively with the Neoconman mindset: only, they need then to become REPORTED.
Which brings us back to OUR problem in the Homeland, now pretty Secure against many such factual incursions.
Ashton
|
Post #110,993
7/22/03 8:34:05 PM
|
Medical?
Does that fall under "your do no harm?"
What about a pharmacy selling medication?
What about a food store?
If the white only food store has prices 20% less than the black serving one next door, it that harmful?
What about if the nearest black serving food store is 20 miles away?
What if the area that that has the most jobs only has food stores that serve whites only? Blacks couln't work there because they couldn't eat.
I say the "cause no harm" could be twisted any way you want.
|
Post #110,998
7/22/03 8:53:56 PM
|
Turn it around
Remember my example, pre-1960's Birmingham, Alabama. The law prohibited serving blacks and whites at the same lunch counter. Would a proprieter have been "wrong" to violate the local law?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #111,004
7/22/03 9:20:07 PM
|
I'm merely exploring your "harm" limitation
You conveniently ignored that and threw up the Birmingham straw man.
|
Post #111,086
7/23/03 8:02:54 AM
|
Not allowed to buy my product != harm
If I own a product, and I don't want to sell it to you, why should I have to? If I provide a service and I don't want to provide it to you, why should I have to?
And why is Birmingham a straw man? That was specifically to refute the point that community consensus should be allowed to dictate how I run my own business.
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #111,087
7/23/03 8:09:13 AM
|
Untrue - Answer Y/N on water company above
And your Birmingham is a straw man.
An example of one bad law does not invalidate all.
|
Post #111,007
7/22/03 9:38:29 PM
|
I'm not a pilot
But I'm a damn good researcher. Try [link|http://frwebgate2.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=923667454418+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve|here] and [link|http://frwebgate6.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=92354941756+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve|here]
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #111,085
7/23/03 7:58:50 AM
|
Cool, but ...
The links apparently only work from within a session, because I'm getting nothing with them. What search terms did you use on that site to find them?
===
Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
|
Post #111,092
7/23/03 8:59:11 AM
|
Here ya go
"Chapter 14" AND "Section 121"
"Chapter 14" AND "Section 135"
Exactly as written above.
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #110,943
7/22/03 4:50:52 PM
|
Agree that the subject title could have been better
lincoln
"Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
[link|http://users3.ev1.net/~bconnors/resume.htm|VB/SQL resume]
[link|http://users3.ev1.net/~bconnors/tandem_resume.htm|Tandem resume]
[link|mailto:bconnors@ev1.net|contact me]
|
Post #111,009
7/22/03 9:59:35 PM
|
Hmmm.
I smell an instigator.
Keep it up. :)
-----------------------------------------
[link|http://www.talion.com/questionw.html|?W]
Where were you in 72?
|
Post #111,020
7/22/03 10:53:48 PM
|
{cackle}
|
