Good morning, Bill...
Now, back on-topic for a change...
Bill Anderson wrote:
> Those are the point, you know. Want to speak pragmatically? Invading my
> privacy would not have prevented 9/11. Period. NONE of the "tools" put
> in place post-9/11 would have. How is that for pragmatic? The best kept
> secrets are right in front of you, right under your nose (like a
> booger).
I can't speak for anyone else, but I keep *most* of my boogers UP my nose,
rather than under my nose. ;-)
> Checking up on people's library habits would not have done a damned
> thing to prevent 9/11. Nor would they have stopped your subway bombers.
> Sneak and peek would not have prevented 9/11. Freezing finances would
> not have prevented 9/11. Asking stupid questions like "did someone else
> pack your bags" would not have prevented 9/11.
>
> have you looked into how they carried out their operation? I have. I am
> also trained in the use of cell networks. Absolutely nothing in the
> Patriot Act would have prevented 9/11. Zip, zilch, nadadamnthing. Not
> even the creation of a DHS would have.
>
> So tell us, is it pragmatic to waste a buttload of time, money, and
> effort going down paths you KNOW don't lead you where you want to go,
> and violate people's rights and destroy lives, not to mention create and
> foment mistrust among the populace in the process?
You are absolutely right in your line of questioning, Bill. Who was it,
Burdick-Lederer in The Ugly American, that first broached the issue of how
we have become "soft Americans" through our dependence upon the government
for everything, including our own security? There was another book,
published more recently, about the philosophy of dependence, which
stipulated that the original independence upon which this country was
founded is a thing of the past. The author (name unknown at the moment)
went on to state that we are being led down that road, even today.
> We were shown *exactly* what would have prevented 9/11 on 9/11.
> Passengers who were not coddled into thinking someone else would save
> them. Decades of airline attendants and passengers being taught to go
> along with a hijacker rather than risk your life. That us ultimately
> what led to the possibility for 9/11 to happen. Complacency and an
> unwillingness to take mortal risk when it is appropriate. We the people
> are our first and last best hope. No amount of legislation or invasion
> or privacy and destruction of individual rights will ever change that.
If I am hearing you correctly, there is *always* a price for independence
and freedom, and each person who wants to live as a free citizen must be
willing to give everything, including their lives, in the defense of it.
The minute we become dependent upon any external force, including the
government, for our freedom, we have lost all rights to it. I've heard
this paraphrased several different ways, but it always comes out sounding
right to me.
> You wanna talk pragmatics about security practices? Bring it on. I'm
> equipped and prepared for an intelligent, informed discussion of the
> facts, are you? If so, lets have a go. Pragmatism isn't just a word or
> an excuse. You have to back it up.
> Random Fortune of the moment:
> Humor in the Court:
> Q: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
> A: Yes, I have been since early childhood.
Random curiosity, is this Fortune running beneath Windows or Linux? I
didn't know they had a version for Windows or I would have probably
installed it everywhere in the Pacific Northwest by now. ;-)
Dave
--
Dave Laird ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
The Used Kharma Lot / The Phoenix Project
An automatic & random fortune for the Minute:
I base my fashion taste on what doesn't itch.
-- Gilda Radner
_______________________________________________
Libnw mailing list
Libnw@immosys.com
List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw
Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
