My reluctance to discuss that topic here was from a fear that I would alienate those I respect and admire in our fight against drug prohibition. I still fear that, but it pales in relevance to the bigger discussion we've been having lately. We're talking about my survival here. With that said, I guess I'll not refrain from dismantling arguments I find to be inconsistent and contrary to the primacy of valuing man's life qua man, and I'll try my best to ensure my own arguments are grounded in reality with existence as its metaphysical basis.

BTW, Lehder, I am a "he." Years ago, a boss I greatly admired when I worked as a magazine editor began routing materials to the editorial staff using "tdm" as my initials in the routing list (from Tim DeMoss, I assume). My initials are actually "tbd," but I respected this man so much that I have used tdm ever since because every time I use that moniker I think of him. Thanks, Bob, wherever you are.

If we do not wage a proper war now, then when? If our appeasement has led to an escalation of disasters in the past, can it do otherwise in the future? Do we wait until the terrorists unleash against us the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons they are rushing to get hold of?

The future of America is at stake. The risk of a U.S. overreaction, therefore, is negligible. The only risk is underreaction.

Now someone might object that this certainly does not sound like 'Lehder'. Well, my answer to that is 'So what?'. I'm happy to entertain this point of view and possibly advocate it. Why should we not consider all possibilities, as tdm does? What I really object to are

1) war as a constant national policy, as it has been for many decades, unnecessarily, mendaciously, for false reasons and most dishonorably.

2) having this or any policy arbitrarily selected by the government without debate or discussion, having it shoved doewn the throats of a population that has been willfully driven into ignorance by the government, and then told that dissent from government policy is tantamount to treason, is criminal, ugly and evil.

I have entertained the possibility that my, and those i learned it from, advice for peace is 20 years too late - or rather, that, because of the conditions outlined in 1 and 2 above, it is too late by 20 years to be considered, although it certainly should have been long ago.

I have imagined this: that Russia is sick of fighting in Chechnya - the oil region between the Black and Caspian Seas - it is sick of hassling with radical Muslims within its own borders, and, right or wrong, it is certainly sick of Afghanistan. So, secretly today, the U.S. and Russia are negotiating the division of the entire oil regions of the mideast and the future of Israel , and are about to combine forces in a big regional war to take over the whole area and divvy it all up.

I don't believe it, but maybe it has come to those choices - a really big and decisive war or else many years of increasing terrorism in the u.s. I wish tdm were not so reluctant to air these views if in fact they or similar ones are hers.

I'm not a politician who imagines that he must be right the first time, cannot change his mind without political disaster, must hold to a single view no matter what, must compound an initial error by bolstering it with bigger errors. That's how we got into this mess: with a government that is nearly totalitarian in its insistence on blind adherence to declared policies - e.g. marijuana is an addictive narcotic. I'm a scientific type person. I make tiny forces, on paper, HUGE, just to look at them and try to understand their effect; I make the sun infinitely massive because it's easier to understand and compute the earth's orbit that way, and when that problem is mastered then the sun can be given a realistic mass and understanding can continue;I divide by zero just for the hell of it and I think that's practical and healthy.

As for separating the discussion of drug legalization from more sensational current events - I don't see how it is possible. The government attitude toward drugs and drug users is evident in its attitude toward its allies now:"yer either with us or yer agin' us". It's just as stupid, it's the same, it's all the same problem: stupidity, mind control and intolerance. Killing Osama will not end terrorism, legalizing weed will not solve our problems in the u.s. I really think that those who are here to legalize weed have deeper problems with the system, the same as I do, the same as tdm. Discussing marijuana all by itself it seems to me is almost irrelevant.

We are, as I have said, at an inflection point. Bush will not last four years. Everything under the sun is going to be discussed and it's going to be quite a discussion! Because 60 years of zero tolerance and No Debate on all the issues are going to be cast aside and our future is going to be decided. We better talk about it. IMHO.

goodbye for today; I really do have better things to do. It's just that I've never found a planet remote enough or dug a hole deep enough to do them in without finding some government agent, taxman, bigot or other armed imbecile pounding at my bunker door. In medieval times, I like to think, I would have been a monk, hiding somewhere, translating Apollonius and burying time capsules for a better day. but it doesn't seem possible. outta here for a while.

Because I have personally struggled so intently in deciding where I stand on the issues facing our country regarding the terrorist attacks (see for yourself at http://demoss.org), and because in my doing so, the core differences in the value systems of each person who posts here have become increasingly evident, I'd like to see us return to what we do best here: advocating the re-legalization of marijuana and ripping apart the anti's flimsy arguments.

The problem really hit home to me after reading Rambler's (who I greatly admire and respect) posted article "The Price is Worth It." There is another point of view which, though likely unpopular here and elsewhere, I am beginning to understand and advocate. I am fully prepared to debate and support this point of view, but doing so will require me to attack at their ethical core the very people I have grown to respect and admire through our common goal of marijuana re-legalization. I don't want to do that here because it dilutes our purpose and the purpose for which I believe this site was created.

The "who" in the case of the Iraqi mass deaths is clear-- overwhelmingly the U.S. and British leadership--but the "who" here is irrelevant because of how the "why" is answered. This is done implicitly. Madeleine Albright said that the deaths are worth it because U.S. policy finds this to be so--and with Albright saying this is "why," that settles the matter for the media. Their indignation at the immorality of killing civilians as collateral damage to make a political point ends, because the Iraqi children die by U.S. policy choice--and in this case the media will not even allow the matter to be discussed. The per se unreasonableness of killing civilians as collateral damage is quietly set aside (reminding one of how the Soviet's shooting down of KAL 007 in 1983 was per se barbarian, but the U.S. shooting down of Iranian airliner 655 in 1988 was a "tragic error.") The media focus on whether Saddam Hussein will allow UN inspections to prevent him getting "weapons of mass destruction," not on the mass death of children. (And of course the media regularly fail to note that the United States and Britain had helped Saddam Hussein obtain such weapons in the 1980s, and didn't object to his using them, until he stopped following orders in August 1990.)

Because the media make the suffering and death of 500,000 children invisible, the outrage produced by the intense coverage of the WTC/Pentagon bombing victims does not surface on their behalf. The liberal historian who was so indignant at even asking "why" for the WTC-Pentagon bombings and argued that only "who" was pertinent has said nothing about the immorality of killing Iraqis; he is not interested in "who" in this case, partly because he does not have to see dying Iraqi children every day, and partly because his government has answered the "why" to his satisfaction, justifying mass death. Is it not morally chilling, even a bit frightening, that he, and the great mass of his citizen compatriots, can focus with such anguish and indignation on their own 6,000 dead, while ignorant of, or not caring about, or approving his (their) own government's ongoing killing of scores of times as many innocents abroad?

This reflects the work of a superb propaganda system. The U.S. government finding the mass death of Iraqi children "worth it," the media push the fate of these "unworthy victims" into the black hole, thereby allowing that policy to be continued without impediment. With the United States itself a victim of terrorism, here the reverse process ensues: with these ultra-worthy victims, the media feature their suffering and deaths intensively and are not interested in root causes, but only in "who" did it; they beat the war drums incessantly and push to the forefront the most regressive forces in the country, making violence and repression the probable outcome of their efforts. But they will sell papers, get larger audiences, support the "national interest," and prove to the rightwing that they are real Americans.

Try to imagine how the mainstream U.S. media and intellectuals would respond to the disclosure that at an early planning meeting of the terrorists responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the question had come up about whether the "collateral damage" of prospectively thousands of dead civilians wouldn't be excessive, but that the matter had been settled with the top leader's response: "we think the price is worth it"?

Suppose further that the terrorists' leaders then set out to make their case to their followers, arguing that it was extremely important to show the citizens of the Great Satan that they were not immune to attack on their own land--that they could not continue to bomb others freely and support the violent states of their choice without suffering some retaliation themselves. The terrorists argued that, as the Great Satan has been conducting low- (and often not so low) -intensity wars against the Third World and Arab states for decades, the planned attacks would be both just and legal under international law, justifiable under the UN Charter's grant of the right of self-defense, which He has relied on so often to excuse his own unilateral actions.

The leaders argued further that since the symbolic value of showing the Great Satan's vulnerability by attacking the WTC and Pentagon would be greatly enhanced by taking out several thousand civilians, this must be regarded as acceptable collateral damage. Finally, imagine the terrorists' leaders explaining to their followers that for the sake of global peace and security, no less than the welfare of peoples the world over, it is crucial to raise the costs of imperial violence, and help persuade the Great Satan's population to ask Him to terminate His wars. This, the terrorist leaders argued, would in the long run save far more lives than those lost in the bombing of the WTC and Pentagon.

Wouldn't the mainstream media and intellectuals be wild with indignation at the inhumanity of the terrorists' coldblooded calculus? Wouldn't they respond in one voice that it is absolutely immoral, evil, and indefensible per se to kill civilians on a massive scale to make a political point? And as to the terrorists' underlying argument that the attacks were justified both as retaliation for the Great Satan's ongoing wars and as part of an effort to curb His imperial violence, wouldn't this be rejected as outlandish? Wouldn't establishment spokespersons rush to claim that despite occasional regrettable mistakes this country has behaved well in international affairs, has intervened abroad only in just causes, and is the victim of terrorism, not a terrorist state or supporter of terrorism? And wouldn't it also be stressed that it is immoral and outrageous to even SPEAK of a "just cause" or any give any kind of legitimation for a terrorist action such as occurred in New York and Washington? That the only question in such a case of violence is "who," not "why"? (These last two sentences are a paraphrase of the indignant argument of a U.S. liberal historian.) And in fact, across the board the U.S. mainstreamers have refused to talk about "why" except for superficial denunciations of an irrational enemy that hates democracy, etc.

Turning now to the actual use of the phrase "the price is worth it," we come to U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's reply to Lesley Stahl's question on "60 Minutes" on May 12, 1996:

Stahl: "We have heard that a half a million children have died [because of sanctions against Iraq]. I mean that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And--you know, is the price worth it?"

Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it."

In this case, however, although the numbers dead are mind- boggling--the ratio of dead Iraqi children to deaths in the WTC/Pentagon bombings was better than 80 to 1, using the now obsolete early 1996 number for Iraqi children--the mainstream media and intellectuals have not found Albright's rationalization of this mass killing of any interest whatsoever. The phrase has been only rarely cited in the mainstream, and there has been no indignation or suggestion that the mass killing of children in order to satisfy some policy end was immoral and outrageous.

Words and music by John Kay..........

Starin' at the boob tube, turnin' on the big knob Tryin' to find some life in the waste land Fin'ly found a program, gonna deal with Mary Jane Ready for a trip into hate land Obnoxious Joe comes on the screen Along with his guest self-righteous Sam And one more guy who doesn't count His hair and clothes are too far out

While pushin' back his glasses Sam is sayin' casually "I was elected by the masses" And with that in mind he starts to unwind A vicious attack on the finest of grasses

Well it's evil, wicked, mean and nasty (Don't step on the grass, Sam) And it will ruin our fair country (Don't be such an ass, Sam) Well, it will hook your Sue and Johnny (You're so full of bull, Sam) All will pay that disagree with me (Please give up you already lost the fight, alright)

Misinformation Sam and Joe Are feeding to the nation But the one who didn't count counted them out By exposing all their false quotations Faced by a very awkward situation This is all he'd say to save the day

Well it's evil, wicked, mean and nasty (Don't step on the grass, Sam) And it will ruin our fair country (Don't be such an ass, Sam) Well, it will hook your Sue and Johnny (You're so full of bull, Sam) All will pay that disagree with me (Please give up you already lost the fight alright)

From the 1968 release "Steppenwolf" Words and music by John Kay

We'll call you when you're six years old And drag you to the factory To train your brain for eighteen years With promise of security But then you're free And forty years you waste to chase the dollar sign So you may die in Florida At the pleasant age of sixty nine

The water's getting hard to drink We've mangled up the country side The air will choke you when you breathe We're all committing suicide But it's alright It's progress folks keep pushin' till your body rots Will strip the earth of all it's green And then divide her into parking lots

But there's nothing you and I can do You and I are only two What's right and wrong is hard to say Forget about it for today We'll stick our heads into the sand Just pretend that all is grand Then hope that everything turns out ok

You're free to speak your mind my friend As long as you agree with me Don't criticize the father land Or those who shape your destiny 'Cause if you do You'll lose your job your mind and all the friends you knew We'll send out all our boys in blue They'll find a way to silence you

But there's nothing you and I can do You and I are only two What's right and wrong is hard to say Forget about it for today We'll stick our heads into the sand Just pretend that all is grand Then hope that everything turns out ok

© Copyright MCA Music (BMI) All rights for the USA controlled and administered by MCA Corporation of America, INC

--Used with permission--

1,557 visitors have read these lyrics.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What's New | Story of Steppenwolf | Audio/Video Samples Steppenwolf Merchandise | Wolf Pack Fan Club

© Copyright John Kay & Steppenwolf. All rights reserved. Pages Designed and Maintained by Michael Wilk

This government is talking of registration cards for all citizens of the world. I will die first. These men are trying to make Revelations happen. This government has merged religion and state, going totally against our Constitution. I believe if God wants a holy war. He will start it. NOT idiots in government trying to sway history.

I don't believe anything they say anymore. Can't afford to. I have to question everything that is said, for we know they hide the truth from the citizens.

This is turning into the same propogana that occured with hitler. Our own government is talking about being fearful of biological attacks, chemical attacks. I don't see the Afgans putting fear into us... but our own leaders. I am more fearful of what our government can do than what Afganistan can do to us.

Error 404 this has been recorded..

Just thought I'd ask.

...If this was a free press,,there should at least be one hour of primetime,per week,or day,,,for public programming......Dont be saying,,"What about PBS?"..PBS may have some good points,but there is not much "Public" about it anymore.........We need a show like;;"The Kaptinemo/Lehder News Hour",,,or,,"This Week,with Observer and Dan B"........"Cannabis Forum,with your hosts,Ethan Russo,M.D.,and FoM"......... ..For my show,...I think I would want the "4d Pokemon-Power Ranger Hour",,,or perhaps some kind of dddd Teletubby thing,,with the four cute,plump 'tubbies',,,,,"Depresso","Drinko",,"Drugo",,and"Devo".

"At a Pentagon news conference, Rumsfeld was asked whether he could guarantee there would be no policy of giving out false information. "You can be certain there is no campaign targeted at the news media," he said

Of course not; the military/industrially controlled media is in bed with the USG.

Journalism and the CIA: The Mighty Wurlitzer http://home.sprintmail.com/~pir/news17.html

So called independent journalists http://mprofaca.cro.net/ciapress1.htm

MOCKINGBIRD: The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/MOCKINGBIRD.htm

from the article:

""You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month." CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. "Katherine The Great," by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)

Get the point?

Yeah, I wonder why, if they can search our patooty holes at the airport, they can't do something about the REAL dangers around us. It is unbelievable that they care more about irradicating drugs, than protecting our country. Hazardous waste will probably be a tool for them (terrorists)in the not-to-distant future. Hate will kill the people, and the planet. And the only thing that will kill hate, is LOVE. Will we have enough to do the job?

Peace. Realize, then Legalize.

RAINBOW FARMS

The same people who neglected to act on priar notice of this attack on the WTC are the same hate filled, cold blooded, NAZI STORM TROOPERS that sighted down the barrel af an assault weapon, and pulled the trigger that sent hot lead into the bodies of our brothers at RAINBOW FARMS. (JUST FOR WANTING TO LEGALIZE A HEALING HERB.) They have NO CONSCIENCE.

I have no doubt they are manipulating the world for an eventual global take-over. Your rights are being dismantled even as I type. Hang on, folks. Our failure to act in mass protest to the killing at RAINBOW FARMS let them know just how weak the movement is. Now it has been shelved and forgotten. By them. But not by me. And not by you, I pray.

This is IT. What we do to prevent our rights being taken away will say it all. Pay close attention to what transpires over the next few weeks and months. You will see the slow dismantling of the freedoms we all cherish. And not by any outside government. By our OWN government. I just hope enough of us have the guts to do something to stop it. If not, all hope of freedom, as we know it, will perish. Under the false pretense of NATIONAL SECURITY. Hey, it worked for Hitler, didn't it?

This is a very sickening thought. It has been crossing my mind for several days now. I dislike thinking it, and I don't believe it. But it is evident that the government is exploiting the attack. That thought is sickening enough and I'll stop there, not wanting to drive myself crazy.

The government has done nothing in a long time to dispel my suspicions that it and the corporations in league with it hold Hitlerian ambitions to dominate the world. Their possession of nuclear weapons and lots of money, their masterful control of public opinion and utter immunity from dissent, make them believe that they can succeed where Napoleon and all others failed. It's a childish ambition, typical of childish minds. frankly, I find the statements coming out of Afghanistan to be better considered and more logical than anything out of D.C. I think their requirement for proof of bin Laden's involvement is not unreasonable - what chance of a fair trial did Noriega have? And the link which Dan B. provided earlier today explained the inexplicable - why the Taleban destroyed the Buddhist sculpures. I don't accept it as a justification, but in their place I would resort to desperate means too. Am I defending terrorism? Of course not. Am I defending the Taleban? No, but every story has two sides, as it's said, and you really have to look hard these days to find more than one. And THAT bugs me.

We all need to stand strong and hold our freedoms. Yes, we have lived with the idea of terrorism and now we have seen it. I am willing to let more air marshalls fly and little tightening up on security at the airport.

We cannot allow them to do anything more. NOTHING more needs to be taken from our rights. NOTHING! The current agencies need to get off their buts, while getting great benefits--and focus on what info they do have and how to use it.

We absolutely cannot guarantee anything if we give up freedoms except freedom itself.

PLEASE STAND STRONG

------ The best that I can say about the U.S. response to the terror attack is that it is exploiting the tragedy in order to gain popular support for exploiting the world for oil. Here is the link, which dddd provided yesterday, that shows a map of proposed and existing pipelines from the huge reserves of the Caspian & Black seas region to deep water ports: http://prorev.com/indexa.htm

I'm so far into this that I am beginning to think it might have been done by our own government to rally towards their "New World Order".

As you say... who is getting the most out of this? Ole Georgie. His ratings went from 35% to over 80%. And by the way... where is Cheney?? Does he not agree with what his own government is doing??

This whole administrations goal has been to incorporate church and state. So far they are succeeding. If they give Ashcroft what he wants, we can kiss out freedom goodbye.

I see that if you are not with them you are their enemy. Our organizations have been treated as the enemy before this tragidy and now I can only assume that we will be considered part of the "cells" that are trying to terrorize this country since they have brought "drug money" into the senerio of support of terrorizm.

I really don't like what I see... I feel horrible for the people that died that day. But to use their deaths to take freedoms away from our own citizens would be a double tragidy.

A couple of years go by, and some turn of events in this war on terrorism precipitates some kind of military action.

Then, in a show of unity and non-partisanship, they introduce an emergency bill that does away with the 2004 elections because it could be too divisive - after all, we're in a state of war.

The more I think about all this, the clearer it gets how the situation benefits our politicians.

Think about this. Not one of them has been touched by this. All the photo-ops you could want - some even bending the term limit rules to stay, some who had decided not to run again suddenly changing their minds because of the situation (Fred Thompson).

Airline customers can be made to submit to a search of their carry on luggage as a condition of getting on the plane. We have allowed searches of people attending stadium events, such as concerts and football games, for years.

Phones lines and e-mail are a different story. The government has no right to listen in without a warrant as these things are all part of the puiblic domain, and no harm has ever come to anyone directly as result of a telephone call or an e-mail.

Leave it to Ashcroft to come up with an idea that violates everyones civil rights rather than dealing with the specific problem of airline security. Unlike his unamerican proposal better airline security could have prevented this attack.

I was wondering about more banners but I wasn't sure which organizations. Delicate ground these days. Ron Bennett put the Red Cross banner up for me. Maybe he would do a couple more. I could email him and ask him. It meets the non profit requirements.

http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/banners.htm

here is page 2 of the link where you can click to get the bulletin:

http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/main.htm

They also have a banner that can be displayed on supporting websites. FoM?

-----

Please all bear with my insanity for a minite.

Has anyone heard about the sun "wave" that is to hit this afternoon?... That we might lose phone and cable service due to the wave hitting the satalites in space. Can we possibly being tapped into?

I have watched this since it occurred and am seeing what I feared I would.

We are stong as a nation, as one, good against bad, but the areas of "bad" are getting larger. I saw a report on CNN that the talban is supported by "drug money" and that one statement tells me we are in for it.

I am afraid that we have arrived at the New World Order and it will be us citizens that will suffer the protection of this government.

I believe our government is lying directly to us to enable their own agenda, not to "protect" it's citizens.

Sorry if this makes no sense.... but things really don't feel right with the direction that things are going.....

*The More Laws, The More Criminals*

I propose stronger measures. If I were trapped in a house full of drunken maniacs I would call for help. I would call for people strong enough to take the madmens' whisky away from them, knock the wind out of them and get me out of there.

I urge foreign governments and institutions who are unhappy with U.S. policies, and who are civilized enough not to bomb us, to 1) speak out without compunction, loud enough to be heard on our TV sets and 2) stop buying our treasury notes, bills and bonds. Take the money away. Let U.S. interest rates soar. Get people's attention. Invest elsewhere. It may not pay as much, but you won't be invaded and destroyed either. Read the writing on the bonds: drug-free, toe the line, finance our wars, destabilize the world, destroy cultures, kill. You'll avoid going to war with America - you never know who is next - and save me a lot of trouble too. Thank you.

The Chinese, by the way, currently own enough U.S. debt that, were they to dump it all, we would have terrible problems.

Totalitarian movements end in political and economic collapse, warfare, destruction and death.

``We do know that without them the occurrence took place, and we do know that each of them would strengthen our ability to curtail, disrupt and prevent terrorism,''Ashcroft said.

Speak for yourself. I know better. We also know that with our current policies they took place.

``The mere fact that we can't do everything shouldn't keep us from doing what we can do,''he says. So do anything at all. If you have no water, throw gas on the fire. Anything!

Our officials can be regarded, individually and collectively, only as insane. I mean this quite literally, the same as the entire Nazi heirarchy could rightfully be labeled insane. Only if this fact is accepted can progress be made in taming our government.

It's no use to try and reason with people like Ashcroft or to petition our government with well-meaning counsel. It does no good to point out moral niceties or offer practical advice to a man who is crazy, extremely drunk and violent. Yet to make any headway we must recognize this as the condition of our government. Then we can ask, "How does one deal with a madman?"

Unfortunately, we are dealing not with a single maniac who showed up on street one day. We find ourselves, rather, the unwilling guest in his house among all his drunken and crazy relatives, all of them shouting, angry at us and blocking the door.

We got into this mess by various failures, but I rank at the top of them all the sinister influence of government and corporate controlled television that permits the presentation of only a single viewpoint and condems, even criminalizes, all others. This circumstance alone has created an unstable system in which the smallest mistake is compounded, by maintaining it and buttressing it with ever larger errors, into universally fatal policies in every aspect of governance.

Whoever attacked us has clearly given up on diplomatic procedures. We had better find ways to get our message on TV.

PAZ,