cannabisnews.com: In War on Terrorism, Unseen Fronts May Be Crucial 










  In War on Terrorism, Unseen Fronts May Be Crucial 

Posted by FoM on September 22, 2001 at 21:50:13 PT
Thomas E. Ricks & Steven Mufson, WP Staff Writer 
Source: Washington Post 

As the buildup of U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf region gathers steam, the Bush administration is pursuing its war on terrorism along less traditional fronts as well, moving to freeze terrorists' assets, pressuring their state supporters through diplomacy and putting in motion covert operations against their networks.The visible military operations and the other, less observable, actions promise to be the two sides of this war. They will make it less like traditional wars the United States has fought and, in many respects, more like the war against drugs that the country has been pursuing for at least two decades, military experts said.
Like the war on drugs, it will be long. It will rely less on conventional weaponry and more on special operations raids, covert attacks and entirely nonmilitary means. Indeed, the less observable realms of intelligence, finance, diplomacy and computer warfare may prove to be the major arenas of the effort, with military operations in a supporting role that will steal the headlines but tell only part of the story."It's closer to the type of complexity in controlling international drugs than it is to Desert Storm," said retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, who led the 24th Mechanized Infantry Division against Iraqi forces in the Persian Gulf War a decade ago and later headed the Office of National Drug Control Policy under President Bill Clinton. "It requires an interagency effort by the Defense, Justice and State departments."The diffuse, complex nature of the administration's emerging strategy for combating terrorism also points to the likely tactics it will use – and on its ultimate targets, according to military experts."Nobody believes that the way to fight the war on drugs is to concentrate on the hapless mule who carries cocaine through an airport," said Richard Perle, a policy strategist in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Likewise, he said, in the war against terrorism "you go after the source. You go after the producers, the big fish. And the equivalent of the producers, the drug lords, are not the terrorists but the countries that harbor them."President Bush has made clear that the administration's initial focus will likely be accused terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. But the most important target in this war – what military theorists call the enemy's "center of gravity" – could prove to be the governments that give sanctuary to terrorists, rather than the terrorists themselves, specialists in military planning said.There is every indication that the war will start – or has started – in Afghanistan, where bin Laden has based his operations since 1996. Although the Pentagon refuses to comment on covert operations, there were rumblings in the Defense Department last week that a counteroffensive was already under way. Indeed, the Taliban militia claimed yesterday to have shot down an unmanned U.S. reconnaissance drone over Afghanistan. The Pentagon had no comment on the report.The military action in Afghanistan, both covert and overt, is likely to rely heavily on intelligence and operations by U.S. Special Forces. "This is the most information-intensive war you can imagine," one Defense Department official said. "I think it is going to put us to the test in many ways."If the Persian Gulf War was more like football, with its lengthy buildup and diagrammed maneuvers, this war likely will resemble soccer, with its fluidity and improvisation. It will be a difficult sort of war to command, execute and analyze, military experts predict. "It is going to require a different mind-set," said one officer involved in planning for it.Officials say that although there eventually could be military action in places other than Afghanistan, the administration has yet to decide on those plans. To give the Pentagon more flexibility, however, the administration has deployed aircraft carriers, a Marine expeditionary unit and scores of warplanes to the region. In an unprecedented move, some aircraft are being sent to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, two of the former Soviet republics in Central Asia.If the military component in the administration's war against terrorism is only half the battle, the other half will include financial, economic, law enforcement, domestic security, diplomatic and intelligence elements, officials said. And their desired effect will be psychological as well as tactical."Now we have a clear enemy who is not only trying to do us great damage, but is also trying to terrorize us . . . to paralyze us by terrorizing us," said Robert B. Zoellick, the U.S. trade representative who was a senior aide to Secretary of State James A. Baker III during the Gulf War. "Our response has to counter fear and panic."Here is how some facets of the struggle are taking shape:On the diplomatic front, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has reached out to European allies, Arab nations, China and Russia in an effort to isolate Afghanistan and make it difficult for bin Laden to find refuge. The United Arab Emirates severed relations with the Taliban, and Iran and Pakistan sealed their borders.Powell has also reached out to sometime foes – such as Syria and Iran – urging them to abandon their past policies of supporting terrorist groups. While asserting that they had no illusions about the chances for such changes, Powell and Bush have indicated to the two countries that now would be a chance for a new start.On the economic front, the administration has sought to use trade and aid to offer incentives to wavering nations and assurance to friends. It moved last week to lift U.S. sanctions on Pakistan that had been imposed because of displeasure with Islamabad's nuclear weapons program. And it held out the possibility of throwing U.S. support behind the rescheduling of talks that were already moving forward on Pakistan's more than $30 billion in debt if it withdraws its support from the Taliban and helps the U.S. war effort.The administration also bolstered trade ties with Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, whose president, Megawati Sukarnoputri, made a previously scheduled visit to Washington to see Bush. Indonesia, a moderate Muslim country, has been used as a base by terrorist networks in the past.On the financial front, the United States is looking for help from Europe, where many of the hijackers in the Sept. 11 suicide attacks on New York and Washington had lived, schooled or transited on their way to the United States. Several European allies, including Britain, Italy, Germany and Spain, have seized bank accounts suspected of being linked to bin Laden or other terrorist organizations.Bush is expected to take the next step Monday by signing an executive order designating some individuals and groups as terrorist and freezing their assets.The administration is also trying to get better intelligence information on the bin Laden network. China agreed to send an interagency group of counterterrorism experts to share information. The administration is also pressuring Pakistan, which is considered the country with the best intelligence on the Taliban and bin Laden, to cooperate.Countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Persian Gulf states – home to financial backers and recruits for terrorist networks – could also provide useful information to the United States. Some of those countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Yemen, have not been completely forthcoming in the past, some U.S. officials say. Saudi Arabia pledged its support in the investigation of this month's attacks and has already delivered dossiers on some individuals as requested by the FBI.It will be difficult to measure the success of these different approaches. And it is likely to be equally difficult to tell when the war is over.Asked to define "victory" in the war against terrorism last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had difficulty coming up with a concise answer. After 500 words of hovering, he landed on his definition. "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said.McCaffrey, a veteran of the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the drug war, said the answer was probably more like New York City's successful war on crime. "At the end of the day, you have to ask a mom whether she feels safe going out with her children," he said. "If she answers no, then you haven't done the job.Source: Washington Post (DC) Author: Thomas E. Ricks & Steven Mufson, WP Staff WritersPublished: Sunday, September 23, 2001; Page A03 Copyright: 2001 The Washington Post Company Contact: letters washpost.com Website: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ Related Articles & Web Site:Holy Warriors Escalate an Old War http://freedomtoexhale.com/hw.htmThe End of Liberty - Salon.comhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10948.shtmlWhat Bush Didn't Say - Salon.comhttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10942.shtmlCivil Liberties and the Hill http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10940.shtmlFBI Tracking Terrorist Groupshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10933.shtml 

Home    Comment    Email    Register    Recent Comments    Help





Comment #25 posted by dddd on September 28, 2001 at 00:24:08 PT
I also recommend Atlas Shrugged
....it's definitly worth reading....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #24 posted by lookinside on September 27, 2001 at 22:17:13 PT:
tdm...
i ordered a copy of "atlas shrugged" on the strength of your recommendation...i'm looking forward to reading it...thanks..
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #23 posted by Dan B on September 23, 2001 at 23:24:15 PT:
Thanks again, everyone!
I have written down all of the suggestions, and I will carefully consider each of them. Thank you very much, everyone, for your input. I knew you would offer some valuable suggestions, and you didn't let me down.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #22 posted by MDG on September 23, 2001 at 12:10:39 PT
Dan, you're going to need some music, too...
I have to say you can't go wrong with some Stan Getz. The album "Getz/Gilberto" is a very nice one to have playing quietly in the background while you read (if it's too loud, you'll stop reading and listen). But, I'm rather partial to Stan Getz, so I might just be biased. Don't play "Captain Marvel", or you won't even bother to pick up a book (it might be hard to read with that playing anyway).Of course, I've always been more responsive to music and tone rather than words anyway, but that's just me.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #21 posted by observer on September 23, 2001 at 10:27:49 PT
War on Marijuana Terror, for the Kids! (Theme # 6)
We can see how this fascict police state is drooling over the prospects: "terrorism" is funded by "drugs." Marijuana is a "drug," therefore (the fascist prohibitionist 'logic' goes) 'marijuana' but especially pot smokers are the Terrorist Enemy!The pot smoker who buys domestic product cannot be accused of any of this. Of course, in the mindless drive to take away all personal freedom, the prohibitionists will paint "marijuana = Bin Laden Terror" links and insinuations again and again. The propagandists want you to forget the war on drugs is a war on marijuana; drop pot from the equation and the police state loses its funding.McCaffrey, a veteran of the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the drug war, said the answer was probably more like New York City's successful war on crime. "At the end of the day, you have to ask a mom whether she feels safe going out with her children," he said. "If she answers no, then you haven't done the job.''The prohibition propaganda which has surrounded the presently illicit drugs represents a blatant manipulation of the symbols of evil that would do credit to Jonathan Edwards. Nothing can so excite an adult population as can anything which appears to threaten their own children. . .''
http://drugwarpropaganda.selfhost.com/t.cgi?6 (earlier)The visible military operations and the other, less observable, actions promise to be the two sides of this war. They will make it less like traditional wars the United States has fought and, in many respects, more like the war against drugs that the country has been pursuing for at least two decades, military experts said.''Since the Harrison Act of 1914, the user and the seller of illicit drugs have both been characterized as evil, criminal, insane, and always in search of new victims, the victims are characterized as young children. Drug usage is characterized as "contagious;" its increase (real or imagined) is characterized as an "epidemic." Efforts to reduce drug usage are referred to as the "war" on or "battle" against drug abuse.''NIDA: Themes in Chemical Prohibition, William L. White, 1979 
http://drugwarpropaganda.selfhost.com/t.cgi?6 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #20 posted by Cannabis Dave on September 23, 2001 at 10:13:02 PT:
If this "war" is like the WOD we are doomed!
Considering how futile and counter-productive the WOD has been, if our government is going to use the same tactics we are doomed. They will take away our civil rights in the future even more than they already do, and the problem will just get worse. If they use WOD tactics, then we can look forward to more terrorist attacks and the problem growing much worse. Just as the WOD can only be "won" by decriminalizing drugs, something our government doesn't want to do for their own greedy reasons, and the war on terrorism can only be won by taking away the reason terrorists are willing to die in suicide attacks. Poverty, disease and starvation breed terrorism. If we helped the rest of the world into the 21st century instead of ignoring them while they continue suffering, then there wouldn't be so many people who hate us. If we are helping to feed people and help with other social problems (disease, illiteracy, etc.), then the children in those countries wouldn't grow up hating us - how could they? We ignored Afghanistan after helping them defeat the Soviet Union, and that country fell into chaos until the Taliban take over. As bad as they are, it was worse before they established their form of "order". We created the situation their that fosters hate against us, and now we will just be feeding that monster by killing moslems in that part of the world. If our government uses the same wisdom in the war against terrorism as they have in their war against drugs, then we are facing a major disaster now. The only way any good can come out of this, is if a social revolution occurrs and the criminals in power are brought to justice. I expect them to now do the wrong things in the name of the greed which spawned the evil people in power.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #19 posted by E_Johnson on September 23, 2001 at 10:07:59 PT
Then why do they put their fingers THERE?
"Nobody believes that the way to fight the war on drugs is to concentrate on the hapless mule who carries cocaine through an airport," said Richard Perle, a policy strategist in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration.Okay, Richard Perle, then why are those US Customs agents sticking their fingers up so many black womens' behinds?They ain't looking for Osama Bin Laden or commercial jet flight manuals up there.Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right one is doing...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #18 posted by tdm on September 23, 2001 at 10:07:51 PT:
author for Dan
Dan,
One of the most influential books I have read from that period is Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. She wrote it in 1957, 52 years after moving to the United States. It is essential reading, in my opinion.tdm
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #17 posted by Doug on September 23, 2001 at 09:45:56 PT
Operation Infinite War
Here we are being promised a war whose end is unforeseen. We will never know when it is won, and it will go on forever. So the country will be permantly on a war-footing, with all the restriction on daily life that that entails. I can imagine the message in another 7 years: "Oh, you want to hold that anti-drug war rally? No, I don't think so, it would give aid and comfort to the Terrorists." It reminds me more and more of the constant wars of Orwell's 1984 -- even the villians change. At one time Afganistan was our friend, freedom fighters, and we have even sent money to the Taliban this year.  This is also an excuse for taking out anyone else we want to. It looks like Iraq is on the list of countries "associated" with terror. And based on the previous history of our government's truth in these matters, can you believe anything they say about who the perpretrators were? I know her poetry is not so popular any more, but in her day she was extremely popular, and besides she just died: Edna St. Vincient Millay.  Gore Vidal wrote some novels before 1965; as I remember he started in 1948.  And has anyone mentioned Norman Mailer, specifically "The Naked and the Dead"  While it was first published a three years too early, it might still qualify: "Herland" by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, about a utopia populated by women.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #16 posted by kaptinemo on September 23, 2001 at 08:26:47 PT:
Where are these author's heads located?
"Like the war on drugs, it will be long. It will rely less on conventional weaponry and more on special operations raids, covert attacks and entirely nonmilitary means.The obvious question to ask at that point is, of course, how effective this approach would be by using the same methods as the DrugWar. But do the authors make it? Nope.And, who do they choose for their 'expert opinion'? McC... under whose 'leadership' the truly dangerous stuff rose in quantity and quality, and dropped in price. Yep, a real authority of the efficacy of the American DrugWar."Nobody believes that the way to fight the war on drugs is to concentrate on the hapless mule who carries cocaine through an airport," said Richard Perle, a policy strategist in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. Likewise, he said, in the war against terrorism "you go after the source. You go after the producers, the big fish. And the equivalent of the producers, the drug lords, are not the terrorists but the countries that harbor them."What Mr. Perle so conveniently forgets is that just as with the DrugWar, the TerrorWar assumes that all the players are static, and irreplacable. When in fact, just like the narcos, 20 fanatics stand in line behind the next 'martyr', ready and willing to take his place. And the only 'big fish' that they have ever really been able to bring down was Pablo Escobar, with the result that even more cocaine flooded into the US as his organization fractured, recombined, and grew stronger; proof positive of Nietzsche's dictum that 'what does not kill me, makes e stronger'. The cartels are stronger than ever. When fighting the mythical Hydra, you don't chop off a head; two grow back. You aim for the heart - the profitability - and these would be dragon-slayers won't do that. Not when their pension plans are dependent upon maintaining this enemy for them to fight.Proof of the pudding?"Asked to define "victory" in the war against terrorism last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had difficulty coming up with a concise answer. After 500 words of hovering, he landed on his definition. "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said."The DrugWar has had 87 years, and it's worse that it's ever been. Whole nations are enthralled to these thugs. Burma. Nepal. Colombia. And arguably, any nation that makes it its' business (literally as well as figuratively) in 'fighting drugs' is equally susceptible in being sucked into the maelstrom.But this very last bit of the article is truly, acidically ironic:"McCaffrey, a veteran of the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the drug war, said the answer was probably more like New York City's successful war on crime. "At the end of the day, you have to ask a mom whether she feels safe going out with her children," he said. "If she answers no, then you haven't done the job.It was under McCaffrey's administration of the DrugWar that 11-year-old Alberto Sepulveda was murdered by police. That 17-year-old Esequiel Hernandez was murdered by Marines. That Patrick Dorismond was killed by New York's Finest. and God alone knows how many others.It was under his tutelage that the DrugWar inspired Rampart and Miami scandals were unfolding. Yes, so safe they were. So safe from the crime of potheads toking up. So safe because the the monies that could have been used to avert the twin tragedies in New York and Washington DC were instead used to chase, imprison or kill you and me.Now don't you feel such pride and confidence in the US Governments abilities to 'protect' you?To add my own two cents to the literary debates, I would submit two titles especially pertinent, in light of today's headlines:Sinclair Lewis's It Can't Happen Here! and Taylor Caldwell's The Devil's Advocate Both illustrate waht happens to ordinary American people caught up in the throes of a formerly free nation, because of 'national emergencies', becoming slaves of home-grown dictatorships. Some of the parallels are disturbingly familiar to our news broadcasts...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #15 posted by Silent_Observer on September 23, 2001 at 08:05:01 PT
dddd...
You sure said a mouthful!
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #14 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 08:02:05 PT
,ggghhh,,Ghakkk...sorry....
..cant say much right now,,Ive just experienced a Grand Magnum Pro Series POWER BARF!!,,,,,while watching Meet The Press,with Tim Russert....Hastert,Daishle,Lott,Gephart,,,,,,,in a disgusting and repugnant ,touchy-feely,sick, soap opera from the people whos paychecks all rely on the shameless sponsorship of GE,and ADM..............anyway,,,I'm thinking and hoping that I am not just imagining what is going on here!....These ol' boys were all agreein' on everything,with Tim Russert asking the pre-approved,and previewed questions,as if Mr Russert was some sort of independant journalist......WAKE UP!!!!!......IT"S A FREEKIN GOVERNMENT SHOW!!!!...could it get more obvious?,,,Lockheed-Martin commercial....Oh well ,,,thanks for reading my freak-out..........now I'm gonna torture myself with Sam,and Cokie,,and George Will....dddd 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #13 posted by leefmyner on September 23, 2001 at 07:34:14 PT:
free speech exists, if only in obscurity
Check this out: http://www.lbbs.org/weluser.htm, if you want to read some unscensored views about the "war on terrorism"
[ Post Comment ]

 


Comment #12 posted by Ethan Russo MD on September 23, 2001 at 06:05:43 PT:

One More, Dan
It would be great to include Julia, by Lillian Hellman. This would be very appropos, as it deals with a very out-of-the-mainstream heroine who sacrifices everything to preserve her ideals. The students would also be inspired by seeing the movie.I admit to a bit of envy here, Dan. I'd love to teach such a class. You have a fabulous opportunity here to open and mold young minds. 
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #11 posted by Dan B on September 23, 2001 at 05:39:30 PT:

Thanks, Dr. Russo.
I'll consider including On the Road by Kerouac too, then. I was not aware that the particular book I have is not representative of Kerouac's work. I should have known better.I will likely include either Faulkner or Hemingway, but not both. I'd like to include a great many more authors, but I have only so much time. I think I've reached a fairly good balance at this point with about four days to spend on each novel and eight days for all of the poetry we will cover. Believe it or not, that narrows the number of novels to just seven. I am in desperate need of female authors from this time period, and the only ones that really stand out for me are Willa Cather and Gertrude Stein. Cather seems more appropriate for an undergraduate class. I had some trouble with Stein at the graduate level (at times, she borders on incoherence), although I have already explained that I really began my study of English literature at the graduate level. Regarding the time frame, I fully understand the beginning date of 1918 (end of World War I), but 1965 seems awfully arbitrary to me. 1968 would be a much more appropriate cut-off date, given that both Robert Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated that year. Incidentally, Neal Cassady died that year too. So did John Steinbeck, Helen Keller, and Upton Sinclair. Andy Warhol was shot that year. It was the year of the Tet offensive and the year of the My Lai massacre. And, as you mentioned, it was the year that Tom Wolfe published The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test. Also, 1968 would round out the number of years (50, rather than 47) in the covered span of time. (Note: I may be biased; 1968 was also the year I was born).But, I really do need to stick with the guidelines I have been given (the only requirement I have been given is the time period, so it only seems fair to remain within that framework). And while I will ultimately have a more difficult time choosing the list, I tremendously appreciate all of the input from everyone who has responded.Thanks.Dan BP.S.: I'll try to close parentheses I begin from here on out. (See post #7)
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #10 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 05:19:11 PT

I should have guessed...
..that Master Ethan would be hep to the modern classics.It's too bad you couldnt teach a class on the 65 to 75 era.Wolfe,Vonegaut,Kesey,Brautigan,Robbins.....etc.....those were the days,,and I'm glad you brought all this up Dr. Dan.I knew there was going to come a time when I would be thankful that I saved all those boxes of old books.Reading is a really good thing.It teaches,and reminds one,of the language of the mind,and mouth.It seems so "low-tech",in this day and age of computers,,to read a book,,but books are food for the mind.dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #9 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 05:03:37 PT

reading
..I agree that Kerouac's poems are not so good,but I think,On the Road,will change your opinion.I think that this book was an important factor in defining that time frame,and very significant in the roots of beatnik culture,,which planted the seeds that eventually morphed,or mutated into the Hippies.Perhaps Charles Bukowski would be of interest to you,,if you dare.http://www.levity.com/corduroy/bukowski.htmdddd

[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #8 posted by Ethan Russo MD on September 23, 2001 at 04:47:40 PT:

A Vote for Kerouac
Dan, please do read On the Road. It is a benchmark American novel and fits your criteria beautifully. The Beat Generation heralded the Aquarian Age in many respects, and it would be very instructive to your heretofor sheltered young tabula rasa. Kerouac's later writing deteriorated into pathetic ramblings inbetween bouts of delirium tremens.It's too bad that Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test was not published until 1968, but it should definitely be in there since it follows naturally from Kerouac, and describes events of Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters just before 1965.You will probably need a Hemingway and a Faulkner to round things out. It should be a great class.
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #7 posted by Dan B on September 23, 2001 at 04:17:26 PT:

Thanks, dddd
I'll pick up and read a copy of Catch-22 in October (when I get paid). It was written in 1961. Strangely, I have yet to read it (I entered the English field rather late in life, and much of my time prior to that was spent either carousing in German bars and night clubs, or reading as much as I could shove into my brain about psychology. The latter activity is what led me to English; that is, my absorption with psychological study after psychological study led me to the realization that it is ludicrous to attempt a scientific study human behaviors. Psychology is like religion: it's all in the interpretation; therefore, it's all fallible, and often with disastrous consequences. But I digress. Heck, I was digressing on my digressions.I looked up some information on Catch-22, and it looks like the kind of book I want my students to read. Thanks for this very good suggestion. As for Hoffer, I will likely read him, too, but I think that most of his work is nonfiction, whereas I am chiefly concerned with fiction and poetry in these classes. But I do thank you for the suggestion. You have been quite helpful.And as for Kerouac . . . well, let's just say that I appreciate his philosophical underpinnings, but after reading Scattered Poems, I'm not very impressed with his writing ability. I know I should really read On the Road before making such a harsh statement, so please, once again, forgive my ignorance on the matter. I'll do my best to get ahold of that volume, as well (my focus has been American literature and modern American poetry; one would think I would have read these important works by now). I'll let you know what I think.Again, thanks dddd.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #6 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 03:08:47 PT

yet another writer for you Dan
might be Eric Hoffer.....here's a quote;"The Americans are poor haters in international affairs because of their innate feeling of superiority over all foreigners. An American's hatred for a fellow American...is far more virulent than any antipathy he can work up against foreigners...Should Americans begin to hate foreigners wholeheartedly, it will be an indication that they have lost confidence in their own way of life. "He's really quite good,and I believe he publish many items during that time......ddddhttp://www.freedomsnest.com/hoffer.html
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #5 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 02:54:26 PT

also,,,Dr Dan
Jack Kerouac tends to make people think outside the norms.I dont think an American literature class dealing with that era would be complete without at least mentioning him.....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #4 posted by dddd on September 23, 2001 at 02:49:56 PT

IronPerson
....A most intrigueing bit of trivia Dan.I'm not sure if it would be appropriate,as it was many years ago that I read it,,but perhaps Catch-22,by Joseph Heller,(i think?),would be good?,,,,(come to think of it,it may have been written after 65)dddd
[ Post Comment ]


 


Comment #3 posted by Dan B on September 23, 2001 at 01:59:02 PT:

dddd . . . I agree.
FoM, please remove post #2. For those who are wondering what it said, an updated version (without the excessive underlines) is available below.
I have to use a different vocabulary when speaking to members of my family and such (they are often what many here would call "sheeple" in many respects), but I have been trying to show them that there is another side to this whole thing that everyone is ignoring: the government is using it to take away our freedoms. So far, I have only been marginally successful, but I'll keep trying.On another note, I am hoping that the university will offer me a chance to teach "American literature: 1918-1965" again next semester, and I am wondering if anyone can suggest an author (or perhaps a particular book) that fits the description (American, published between 1918 and 1965). I will continue to include Alex Haley's The Autobiography of Malcolm X, Ken Kesey's One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and J. D. Salinger's The Catcher in the Rye, as well as Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath and a poetry component (including Allen Ginsberg's "America," which I am also using this semester), but I need two or three more books that speak to questioning authority, the insidiousness of governmental intrusion, and/or the consequences of violating liberty and freedom.Huxley and Orwell are British, so (sadly) I can't include them. But I know many of you have good ideas.  Please consider tossing them my way. If you can think of some female authors, those will be especially important (you may have noticed the dearth of female authors in the above list. I will likely include a book by Willa Cather, too). If I don't use these works next semester, I plan to be somewhere next year that does afford me this opportunity.Thanks!Dan BA little trivia: Fe-Male = Iron Man, no?
[ Post Comment ]



 


Comment #1 posted by dddd on September 22, 2001 at 23:48:08 PT

WAKE F*#KING UP AMERICA!!!!!!
....The more I think about it,and read things like this article,,,the more I cannot believe what is going on.Where is everybody?..I have a bad feeling that all voices of dissent have been totally censored and suppressed in the national media...Less than two weeks after the events of 9/11,,the government has installed a new war on terrorism regime,and has used the media to make it all seem normal,and patriotic!In less than two weeks,with little,or no debate,with zero public input,the government has seized the opportunity to change everything,,and the numbed public is going right along with it.I am horrified at how this is being pulled off,and how smoothly the public has been scammed into acceptance of an absurd,undefined,and open ended "war"....It may sound strange,but the roots of totalitarianism have taken hold,in our supposed democratic government.The threat of terrorism pales in comparison to the threat on our country from our own ruling regime....Terrorist dont worry me much at all,but what's happening politically scares the shit out of me.The control of the media is an Orwellian nightmare,that is happening here,and now,as the masses of sheeple are spoonfed by dark,and invisible ministries of propaganda.;>"It will be difficult to measure the success of these different approaches. And it is likely to be equally difficult to tell when the war is over. Asked to define "victory" in the war against terrorism last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had difficulty coming up with a concise answer. After 500 words of hovering, he landed on his definition. "I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said. ""I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said. ""I say that victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that is going to be over in a month or a year or even five years," he said. "Bush.." Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans
      should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have seen.      It may include dramatic strikes, visible on television, and covert operations, secret even
      in success."" Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or
      you are with the terrorists." Freedom and fear are at war. The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement
      of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us.      Our nation, this generation, will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our
      future. We will rally the world to this cause, by our efforts and by our courage. We will
      not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail.If someone out there feels that these statements are nothing to be alarmed about,then I would like to know what you do think.This "war on terrorism",is going to open more than one of the boxes of that bitch,Pandora.dddd
[ Post Comment ]





  Post Comment