dennis_couvillion Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 I am in favor of legitimate measures designed to prevent hijackings and mass murders such as occurred on 9/11/01. Many so-called security measures now taken at airports, unfortunately, infringe on rights that we were previously accustomed to exercising. But, with that said, part of the problem here is the insult of being restricted by airport personnel that give the impression of being the gang that couldn't shoot straight. Are the new security measures really effective when they are being implemented by some people who don't appear to have either the intelligence, education or common sense to do the job? Before I insult every airport security person reading this, let me say that while I am sure there are many intelligent and qualified airport security workers, my experience is that there are many who couldn't prevent a shoplifter in a candy store. I will spare you the anecdotes and simply say that I have flown enough to experience it first-hand, and enough so that I drive instead of flying whenever I can. Before 9/11, air travel was merely an irritation to me; now it's a royal PITA. (I drove to New York last week, BTW, from New Orleans.) We are in an unaccustomed difficult situation right now because, after 9/11, we have come to realize just how vulnerable we are. Many of the new airport security measures, in my opinion, though, just give the impression of safety and security and are designed to re-assure people that everything is under control. People are still flying so most folks must be okay with tighter security measures. But, if you are hanging around an airport taking pictures you will draw attention, and you won't get much symapathy, except from shooters like us. Ray, I think you did the smart thing by backing off. It's a no-win situation. Interesting thread... Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asher Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 <B><U>Thomas Turk:</U></B> In addition to what Victoria pointed out about rense, I noticed that tonight is Filer's "UFO Reports". Yup- rense sure is reputable, alright.<P> WRT the original topic, I think airport security have a tough enough job as it is, and although I know that I'm not a terrorist, there is no way they can know that about me. I wouldn't be happy being forced out like that, but I can't say I'd be surprised, and I would have done exactly what Ray did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 The bulk of Saddam's atrocities against his people occured during the Reagan administration, when the US was busy arming him. Who knows, maybe he learned some techniques from the Special Forces "advisors." --so it is the US's fault of course (again)? Nothing to do with the actual people who actually did the atrocities or started the war. They are the cuddly teddy bear lovers who would be so nice if it wasn't for the US. It is also not true anyway: Saddam was not gentle to Iraqis after the first Gulf war. Bin Laden was armed by the CIA to get the Russians out of Afghanistan. (A forgotten story is that now Unocal wants a pipeline from the countries to the north of Afghanistan to the Arabian Sea.) --In fact the idea is the pipe runs from Baku in Azerbijian to the Black Sea. Not through Iraq or Iran. They have their own pipelines. Everyone knows the Caucasus is important to the US and the West because it is believed to be a way to minimize the significance of the Persian Gulf. O yes but of course it is bad for the US to get out of the Middle East - oh no it isn't. Isn't that what you maintain the West needs to do? Somoza, Pinochet, Noriega, Trujillo, Mobuto, and lord knows who else, were dictators propped up by the US, ostensibly to counter the Red menace. --My next test is to ask you to name all the dictators the Communists supported -- come on. There are at least as many (plus those in their own Russian/Soviet Empire)..... The Kingdom of Saud is propped up by the US, just for cheap oil. The New Yorker has written extensive articles about the relationship of the Bush family with the Saudi Royals. The Carlyle Group has offices in Texas, New York, London, and Riyadh (of all places). Why Riyadh? The Carlyle Group is a high finance/venture capital firm stocked with ex-Republicans, including Bush Senior. We don't do anything about Saudi Arabia (or Pakistan), when the overwhelming evidence is that they had a hand in 911. Mais non - impossible! Really this is such old news. OK so should the US depose the House of Saud and kick out Musharref too? Come on what exactly would you do? and you don't have a year to make up your mind! You would be first in line complaining if that was a real option. None of the above gentlemen would be considered desirable citizens of the US, and their kind of conduct is abhorred in the US. However, we don't mind if their rape and pillage their own people. We can smugly say that it wasn't us, and that we're Simon pure, that we live up to the highest ideals of human civilization, that we are the most civilized people that ever existed on Earth, that we have a better God/G-d/Yahweh than the Satanic heathens in other stupid savage nations, etc. Then we wonder why they come and bomb us. You may say that, I doubt anybody in any real administration now or earlier thinks this - but you know those governments also have to wise up and face up to their responsibilities too. By the way, the Clinton administration was also part of the buildup in the Middle East, it is not just the Republicans who are to blame. We also don't have a coherent "Exit Strategy" in Iraq. More body bags seem to be the only "Exit" for the soldiers, the unwitting Rachel Corries in a cruel game. Quite - so what is your solution? I know it is either a) no intervention in Iraq or anywhere - this is consistent; b) intervene everywhere whenever someone does something naughty - the US would be real busy - would you like that? c) only intervene when b) and vital Western interests are concerned. It is not illogical to pick c) really is it? Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vic_. Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 Robin, I wasn't suggesting that US foreign policy is/was wrong. I was merely trying to point out that it is rather self-righteous of Jay to assume that Newton's Third Law of Motion doesn't apply to the US, since everything was done at arms length and on foreign soil. That's all. It really doesn't matter who bombs whom, in the end it will all tend towards equilibrium, and "Made in China" products will win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 "...but the bottom line is that we are living in a different world post 9-11 especially in this country." No, it's the same old world. Only now you're paying attention to it, if only for reasons of self-interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_tillman Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 http://www.washtimes.com/national/pruden.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
._._z Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 Ah, an editorial from the editor in chief of the far-right, Moonie-owned WashTimes. Seeing as we already got links to conspiracy-laden, UFO-credulous sites, this should have been expected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeeter Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 mark tillman, glad to see you are still out there. i, for one, have missed you. hope you post some pictures sometime... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey L.T. von Glück Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 For those interested, Barry Goldwater's complete quote is: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Goldwater was paraphrasing. I believe this quote is originally attributed to Cicero who lived in first century BC Rome. A catchy quote but the media plastered Goldwater for it and never mentioned the second half or that he was merely quoting an ancient Roman. Jeffrey L. T. von Gluck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray . Posted December 3, 2003 Author Share Posted December 3, 2003 I sort of liked Barry Goldwater... one of the few Republicans, or politicians for that matter, that I could say that about. He seemed honest and sincere, and I think he was more middle of the road and level headed than some people think he was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey L.T. von Glück Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Ray, Yes, Goldwater spoke his mind, didn't give a damn what the polls showed, no focus groups or handlers telling him what to say. More than anything, he wanted to be known as an honest man. I had the pleasure of having lunch with him (along with 9 or 10 other people) in either 1979 or 1980 and got a chance to chat with him. He was an avid photographer, as everyone knows, and an outdoorsman. He loved the Southwest and loved to talk about his photographic adventures. Of course, you see where his outspokenness and plain speaking got him politically. Jeffrey L. T. von Gluck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Robin, no doubt you are a sensible, grown up, pragmatic fellow, with a certain wordly wisdom, but your defensiveness over the current policy pursuits of Bush and co does you little credit. There can be very little doubt that we, the general public are not appraised of all the agendas that drive US foreign or domestic policy, and if we look with open eyes at what is going on there is much to be disenchanted, if not alarmed, by. There are many questions that can be legitimately asked about the sense of The US military and political wrath and why Iraq was the chosen target and not Pakistan for instance, or indeed why some other completely different approach was not taken up. Questions should be asked, and asked stridently and persistently in a properly functioning democracy. Real questions, free from politically ridden, self-serving agendas should be raised within and without state structures as to what is best for the people as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_clark Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Peter A, Your cynicism is understandable, but too narrow and simplistic. No doubt to a large extent we get the governments we deserve and no doubt consumerism and the accompanying lifestyles we are building form strong disincentives to really risk that all by sharing some of it. The trouble is that this sort of lasseez-faire greed and privilege that we seem to be increasingly addicted to also makes us vulnerable and a bit stupid. Do we really think we can continue to grow wealthier and keep most of the world's population both weak and poor without risk? Or more optimistically, and maybe even more stupidly, do we really think we can make everyone else as well off and as wasteful as we are? Or, are you really happy to continue to use increasingly global military force to preempt any threats to our preeminent lifestyles, to secure the resources we need to ensure they continue, and to undermine or destroy any perceived competitors to our economic and military dominance? Perhaps reorientating or redirecting some of our deeply-held economic principles might not be such a bad idea after all, even if it means less consumer profligacy. Whatever way we look at things, we are going to have to change, whether voluntarily or through force of circumstances. The longer we hold that off, the harder we will fall. The price of expecting our governments, whether in OZ, Europe or the US, to keep improving our already comfortable lifestyles is just too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lutz Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Very well said, Robert. I just wonder (without cyniscism, just scepticism) how strongly this truth will echo within the specific comunity here. My scepticism deriving from observing my own attitude. I would rather try to improve my sitaution than renounce to improvement, even though I _know_ material improvement is based on material injustice and exploitation. Any suggestions for a real world attitude that complies with your forementioned moral standards? I'd really appreciate to be inspired. Bests, Lutz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 "...this sort of lasseez-faire greed and privilege that we seem to be increasingly addicted to also makes us vulnerable and a bit stupid." <p> I bought my daughter a plastic inflatable wading pool this summer for $3. <i>Three Dollars!</i> Made in China, of course. I can't mail a first-class letter to China for $3, so how in the world can they procure the raw materials, assemble them, pay a wage to their workers and ship the product to the other side of the planet for <i>three dollars?</i> <p> In almost every house I've been to, including my own, the people living there have a "junk room." Usually a spare bedroom or something whose function is holding the overflow of <i>stuff</i> they own. Old Video cameras, snow skis, camping gear; shelves full of video cassettes, CD's and floppy disks; bicycles, helmets, skateboards, televisions. I know more than one family who park their cars in the driveway because the garage is <i>full</i>. Full of motorcyles, snowmobiles, lawn tractors, ATV's and all the paraphernalia to support them. But I don't know anyone, myself included, who thinks they have enough money. <p> When my dad was a boy, he said he was glad to get an <i>apple</i> in his stocking for Christmas. In the house he grew up in, I remember my Grandmother making Thanksgiving dinner in a kitchen with no running water. She had a cast-iron pump handle in the sink. The funny thing is, lots of people lived like that. I'm only 43, but that world seems like a page in a history book compared to the world we live in now. No one wants to go back to a Depression-era lifestyle, but how can we continue living like this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_perlis Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 There's no doubt rampant consumerism has lots to answer for, and I'm not about to defend single passenger SUVs in Los Angeles traffic. However, conspicuous consumption and materialism at its worst is a cuddly teddy-bear compared to ideology and faith. It wasn't the urge for new goodies that drove the priests of the Spanish Inquisition, Adolf, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Custer, Bin Laden, and all the rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 "It wasn't the urge for new goodies that drove the priests of the Spanish Inquisition, Adolf, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Custer, Bin Laden, and all the rest." William, that is absolutely correct about the tyrants. But as far as the youth of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., I'd bet that what they aspire to is Britney Spears CDs, MTVs, SUVs, etc. The consumerism that has gotten out of control in America is what people all over the world really want, IMO. Maybe that says something disturbing about human nature in general. Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Smith Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 "Robin, no doubt you are a sensible, grown up, pragmatic fellow, with a certain wordly wisdom, but your defensiveness over the current policy pursuits of Bush and co does you little credit. There can be very little doubt that we, the general public are not appraised of all the agendas that drive US foreign or domestic policy, and if we look with open eyes at what is going on there is much to be disenchanted, if not alarmed, by." Robert, thank you - I agree with what you say. My purpose in getting into all this is not because I am a Republican (it might surprise you to know that I am not) - but with the issue of Iraq I do happen to think the US did the right thing. I also think the US should have intervened in Liberia and the Congo and Rwanda and indeed probably finish the job in Somalia. I also happen to think that US support is excessive for the state of Israel and so on. But what I do object to is the very childish damning of all US foreign policy since 1945 and the idea that somehow the US is responsible for of the ills of the world and is now destroying the world through globalization. This is such an absurd generalization that it challenges any thinking person anywhere. When I hear it, I react against it. Politicians and nations have to treat the world as it is and respond accordingly - much of the time the morality is unclear and no one ever knows what will happen. Choices are difficult and virtually never clear and one never has the luxury of too much time to make up your mind. Imagine yourself in that position and one can see it is a huge challenge. Clinton failed in his response to the outrages in Kenya, the Cole and Somalia, but it was indeed understandable and at least he did the right thing in the Balkans eventually when the Europeans pathetically did nothing. Bush has been sorely tested that is for sure and he certainly did not expect it when he came into office. Robin Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 However, conspicuous consumption and materialism at its worst is a cuddly teddy-bear A cuddley bear that kills. But we all love our cuddley bears...just try to take them away from us ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dennis_couvillion Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Robin: I understand and respect your well-reasoned opinion. However, what disturbs me is that too often foreign policy appears to be dictated by the interests of the oil industry, which has made a very small segment of the American population fabulously wealthy. But we, the general public are hooked on oil like it was crack so we tend to rationalize and support questionable decisions concerning the autonomy of other nations in the interest of preserving our access to cheap oil. Just my opinion... Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Gold before Soul, so as to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_shively Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 I'm afraid Robert is looking a little too much with an eye that is clouded with idealism. We live in a world political system that operates on votes cast based on "what's in it for me?" That is, of course, if you live in a political system that allows you to have a voice and a vote. To actually believe that anyone would be willing to give up anything is not realistic. We elect governments to look after our best interests and we throw out governments we feel do not. The "greed" that is so often bantered about actually refers to each person's self-interest. Your self-interest is greed from my point-of-view and my self-interest is greed to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 Come on, lets get to the �nitty gritty� stuff, we all know, but don�t won�t to admit. Unless some starving individual stares into our eyes, touches us physically, and we are sure that they really are about to die ��well, we are not interested. To get any of us to part with our hard earned cash, it�s got to be close and personnel. That�s the way it is in our present state of evolution, or whatever else you believe. Politics are just the mechanics of the world; our reflection in present time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevin m. Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 "The "greed" that is so often bantered about actually refers to each person's self-interest. Your self-interest is greed from my point-of-view and my self-interest is greed to you." Right. And no one is connected in any way to anyone else. We're not people anymore, we're just little corporations, each trying to make a profit. Isn't there some point when self-interested consumption becomes laugh-out-loud funny? How else can something as evidently ridiculous as the Hummer be explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allen Herbert Posted December 3, 2003 Share Posted December 3, 2003 We are all small pieces in the jigsaw, called humanity. However, in our own small way, we can help to create the picture. A practical idea. How about each person reading these thoughts adopts am impoverished family ? Sort of nice and close and personnel. Go and find them, use your brain. One step forward for humanity, one gaint step forward for the individual ! No. i don't belong to anything, free thinker. Nope, i don't like soap boxes. usually made of cheap wood. Just a thought.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now