cannabisnews.com: Drug War Redux
Drug War Redux
Posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 08:09:26 PT
By Sam MacDonald
Source: Reason Magazine
Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and an army of Justice Department officials have descended on Congress this week, lobbying hard for a utility belt of new police powers that they say would allow them to fight the critical war on terrorism. Disturbingly, Ashcroft's rhetoric reveals an ignorance of the immediate past instead of a vision for the future.In an attempt to show just how benign the War on Terror will be for law-abiding citizens, Ashcroft has chosen an odd model: the War on Drugs.
At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Ashcroft repeatedly said that the tools in the fight against terrorism should be at least as strong as the ones used to fight gambling, organized crime, and illegal ("illicit" in government parlance) substances. Law enforcement officials, he said, should be able not only to freeze terrorists’ assets, but seize them--"Just like we have for those individuals involved in drug trafficking."There isn't a single person in Washington, D.C. who would object to seizing Osama bin Laden’s fortune. On the other hand, Ashcroft seemed unaware that more than a few people have objected to civil asset forfeiture and the escalating power it has given police agencies. In fact, widespread concerns over racial profiling, bans on computer encryption, and the increasing U.S. military presence in South America -- all concerns that have striking parallels in the new fight against terrorism -- have forced many people to rethink their position on the drug war.This is not a knee-jerk libertarian response. The In Defense of Freedom Coalition -- http://www.indefenseoffreedom.org/ -- an ad hoc group of more than 150 organizations concerned about Ashcroft’s new grab for power, is a prime example. Cobbled together in the week following the terrible attacks on September 11, groups signing on include everyone from the liberal ACLU -- http://www.aclu.org/ -- to Phyllis Schlafly’s arch-conservative Eagle Forum -- http://www.eagleforum.org/ If the startling display of left-right unity surprises Ashcroft, he wasn’t paying very close attention in the days before the attack. Indeed, a strikingly similar coalition gathered on September 10 to present a united front against invasive policing in the War on Drugs -- the very war Ashcroft now raises as a model in the fight against bin Laden and associates. With 63 participants it was smaller, but just as diverse: The Eagle Forum and ACLU also took part in that effort, which called itself the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties. A driving force behind both coalitions was the super-conservative Free Congress Foundation -- http://www.freecongress.org/If Ashcroft hadn’t personally heard of the Coalition for Constitutional Liberties, the Senate Judiciary Committee certainly had. On September 10, the group delivered a letter to the committee -- the same leaders Ashcroft addressed this Tuesday -- begging members to consider privacy issues before approving John Walters to head the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The hearing was scheduled to take place at 10 a.m. on Sept. 11. I was standing in line to attend it when the Senate Hart Office Building was evacuated.Ashcroft's comparison aside, there are important differences between the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs. Terrorists can deliver a violent payload in ways that drug-addled teens never could. Many people oppose invasive policing in the War on Drugs because they think the war itself is fundamentally wrong; no one, not even left-leaning commentators who think U.S. actions abroad brought on the attack, thinks terrorism can continue unopposed.Perhaps what is similar between the two wars is the reaction by civil libertarians. People across the political spectrum fear that increased police powers will lead us down the path of oppression. As this battle unfolds, Ashcroft should keep in mind that people are listening very closely to his words, and that the words he chooses are critical. By raising the specter of the War on Drugs--a costly, failed national effort that has landed legions of American minorities behind bars and forced millions more to sacrifice civil liberties bit by bit -- he is doing little to inspire confidence in a national police force bolstered with wide-ranging new powers. It certainly doesn’t help when the U.S. attorney general admits, as he did this Tuesday, that even if the tools he is asking for were in place prior to Sept. 11, security officials might not have been able to stop the deadly attacks. People deserve a national effort that will fight terror effectively, not the same tired drug-war rhetoric they have seen fail for years.Note: The attorney general's misguided model for the War Against Terrorism.Source: Reason Magazine (US) Author: Sam MacDonald, Reason's Washington EditorPublished: September 27, 2001 Copyright: 2001 The Reason Foundation Email: letters reason.com Website: http://www.reason.com/Related Articles:Don't Oversell an 'Idea War'http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10977.shtmlAshcroft Takes Terror Case To Senate http://cannabisnews.com/news/thread10971.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #43 posted by Rambler on September 29, 2001 at 04:56:28 PT
On the topic of the airlines bailout
Here's a grat article that lays down what's really going on.http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/sep2001/bail-s26.shtml
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #42 posted by FoM on September 28, 2001 at 21:17:10 PT
dddd
I'm listening to your music. It is very different and interesting. I wasn't aware you were musically inclined. I'm not at all. I couldn't hold a tune in a bucket. That is the expression isn't it? Oh old age and being tired makes me forget. Way to go!PS; I couldn't find where you posted it so I picked this thread but I had bookmarked it.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #41 posted by Rambler on September 28, 2001 at 05:24:22 PT
Off topic, Health
Q: I've heard that cardiovascular exercise can prolong life. Is this true?A: Your heart is only good for so many beats, and that's it. Everything
wears out eventually. Speeding up your heart will not make you live
longer;
that's like saying you can extend the life of your car by driving it
faster.
Want to live longer? Take a nap.Q: Should I cut down on meat and eat more fruits and vegetables?
A: You must grasp logistical efficiencies. What does a cow eat? Hay and
corn. And what are these? Vegetables. So a steak is nothing more than an
efficient mechanism of delivering vegetables to your system. Need grain?
Eat chicken. Beef is also a good source of field grass (green leafy
vegetable).
And a pork chop can give you 100% of your recommended daily allowance of
vegetable slop.Q: Is beer or wine bad for me?
A: Look, it goes to the earlier point about fruits and vegetables. As we
all know, scientists divide everything in the world into three categories:
animal, mineral, and vegetable. We all know that beer and wine are not
animal, and they are not on the periodic table of elements, so that only
leaves one thing, right? My advice: Have a burger and a beer and enjoy
your
liquid vegetables.Q: How can I calculate my body/fat ratio?
A: Well, if you have a body, and you have body fat, your ratio is one to
one. If you have two bodies, your ratio is two to one, etc.Q: At the gym, a guy asked me to "spot" for him while he did the bench
press. What did he mean?
A: "Spotting" for someone means you stand over him while he blows air up
your shorts. It's an accepted practice at health clubs; though if you find
that it becomes the ONLY reason why you're going in, you probably ought to
reevaluate your exercise program.Q: What are some of the advantages of participating in a regular exercise
program?
A: Can't think of a single one, sorry. My philosophy is: No Pain - Good.Q: If I stop smoking, will I live longer?
A: Nope. Smoking is a sign of individual expression and peace of mind.
If you stop, you'll probably stress yourself to death in record time.Q: Aren't fried foods bad for you?
A: You're not listening. Foods are fried these days in vegetable oil.
In fact, they're permeated in it. How could getting more vegetables be bad
for you?Q: What's the secret to healthy eating?
A: Thicker gravy.Q: Will sit-ups help prevent me from getting a little soft around the
middle?
A: Definitely not! When you exercise a muscle, it gets bigger. You should
only be doing sit-ups if you want a bigger stomach.I hope this has cleared up any misconceptions you may have had.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #40 posted by dddd on September 28, 2001 at 01:40:25 PT
previous paragraphs source
http://commondreams.org/views01/0927-07.htm
.,.,dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #39 posted by dddd on September 28, 2001 at 01:37:33 PT
here's a few paragraphs that are worthy reading
Although there has been considerable editorial comment about the need to rethink U.S. defense strategy in the wake of the
September 11th attacks, so far it appears to be business as usual. An article in the September 17-23 issue of Defense News
indicates that roughly $12 billion of the $40 billion emergency package is slated to go to the Pentagon, but it quotes a Pentagon
official as saying that the emergency funds "will have nothing to do with rescue and emergency efforts." The official further states
that "This will have nothing to do with retaliation in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. The funding will go to the [military department's]
wish lists for things that we'll have several years from now." Budget analyst Christopher Hellman of the Center for Defense
Information has suggested that military spending for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2001 could reach $375 billion. Deputy
Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz has intimated that the emergency funds are just the down payment on a major increase in Pentagon
spending, and conservative analysts such as Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute have suggested that it is possible that
Congress will now be willing to push the Pentagon budget to $400 billion per year or more, a figure that was merely a right-wing pipe
dream just a few months ago. This surge in Pentagon spending is good news for major Pentagon contractors, who were among the few companies that showed
increases in their stock prices when the market reopened after the September 11th attacks. Among the top gainers for the week of
September 17-21 were major military and space contractors like Raytheon (+37%), L-3 Communications (+35.8%), EDO (+24.8%),
Alliant Tech Systems (+23.5%), and Northrop Grumman (+21.2%). As James Dao of the New York Times noted, some companies are
already up on Capitol Hill pushing their wares in the wake of the September 11th attacks: "Many military contractors have been
hesitant to talk publicly about their improved economic prospects. 'This is such a gruesome way to make money,' a lobbyist said."
But other companies, like Continental Electronics, have begun openly lobbying for new business, going so far as to call the
Pentagon directly. "We believe that our radio transmitters would be desperately needed in places like Pakistan," said John Uvodich,
the company's president. "We are just trying to let people in Washington know that we are here to assist." ...
...dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #38 posted by Rambler on September 28, 2001 at 01:17:34 PT
Ooops,here's the link
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/09/27/MN225963.DTL
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #37 posted by Rambler on September 28, 2001 at 01:16:37 PT
Speaking of Money and Bailouts;
This link will bring you to an article that asks a very good question.It may be wonderful,and nice, that so much money has been raised for "disaster victims families",but,I have a feeling that if all this money was actually given to the victims families,and even their relatives,each member of these grief-stricken families,down to the third cousins,and great Aunts,would have at least 10 or 20 thousand dollars to heal their woes. No one knows where all this money is going. I dont mean to sound insensitive,but alot of the victims families,were already very rich,and I seriously doubt that many janitors wives,and children,are being given a proportionate share of the massive amounts of cash that have been,and continue to be raised for "the victims families". I got a feeling that most of this money is being sucked up by opportunistic crooks,much like the black holes in the federal "blank checks".After the money's gone,then all that is left is a bunch of shrugging people,who are passing the buck.I'd gladly, personally give fifty bucks to some kid who lost his dad,or a hundred bucks to some janitors wife,but I think it's very unlikely that very much of the money that has been raised will ever be given to those who are actually in need.There will be alot of new Porsches and Mercedes funded by people of the heartland,who imagined they were helping someones family pay the mortgage,or the electric bill.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #36 posted by dddd on September 27, 2001 at 21:27:50 PT
FoM
I'm gettin' vuhklempt................... dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #35 posted by ekim on September 27, 2001 at 21:25:12 PT:
Sorry off topic ---we are still going wish us luck
October PRA Deadline Postponed Until November
September 27, 2001
In an executive decision by Gregory C. Schmid, Director of the Personal
Responsibility Amendment ballot initiative committee and Michigan's NORML
Coordinator, the October 3, 2001 deadline to turn in all petition signatures
has been postponed until Tuesday, November 1, 2001. At the time of this
decision, an estimated 231,000 signatures had been collected since the start
of the petition drive on April 6, 2001.Schmid urged volunteers to "send a petition to everyone on your Christmas
card list" and "make an effort to get out and petition every spare moment"
in an email yesterday. He also urged volunteers to help with the petition
drive to amend the city charter to allow medical use of marijuana in the
city of Detroit. This effort needs only 4,000 signatures to secure ballot
placement, and is expected to meet its goal in only one day.
www.prayes.com
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #34 posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 21:22:10 PT
SWAMPIE & dddd
Good to see you are back Swampie! dddd, I must have taken one too many grumpy pills today because I was in a bad, bad mood. You know the kind when you go grrrrr! Just kidding. I'll be back tomorrow afternoon or early evening and will get some articles posted then but remember til then " Talk Amongst Yourselves" LOL!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #33 posted by tdm on September 27, 2001 at 20:24:02 PT:
Dan B. speaks truth
"The whole idea of a free market economy is such that those who can't handle the financial pressures of the free market will lose, and more competent people will fill their shoes."No truer words could be said.***
Dan, did you really think I'd miss out on all this fun! Besides, the topic is far too important to stay away.And thanks for clarifying your intent. I thought maybe I had temporarily gone insane.
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #32 posted by Dan B on September 27, 2001 at 19:40:16 PT
Looks like I hit a nerve
I agree wholeheartedly that the government should not be in the business of bailing out businesses at all. tdm, your observations are dead on. Thanks for your input.
Actually, and perhaps blatantly, my comments here were an attempt to get you back into the fray here, so I am doubly pleased to see your comments. I always appreciate reading what you have to say. Thanks.The point made about the airlines stealing from the American taxpayers is exactly the point I was trying to make. It is correct that the government was never intended to--nor should it have ever attempted to--undertake a bailout of any industry for any reason. The whole idea of a free market economy is such that those who can't handle the financial pressures of the free market will lose, and more competent people will fill their shoes. Alas, our government always rewards incompetence, thus the crap we've had to endure over the past two weeks, the crap we've had to endure over the past two decades--the crap we've had to endure since 1914, and that which we'll have to endure at least until 2004.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #31 posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 19:31:37 PT
Poisoned and all
I do believe we have become so mobile that we are losing very precious things a long the way.
We need to take a little time and smell the flowers and take a little time and watch the grass grow! That's an old church song by Leverne Tripp. I like it!
I saw an article today that said that Felons aren't welcome in the service. I thought about how many people, due to drug laws, won't be available to help if the draft comes back. I thought that was interesting.
Poisoned, thanks for asking about me and my husband. We must leave at 6 am and hope to be back later in the afternoon or early evening. I'll look for news then. I enjoy going to the VA Hospital even though it is so far from here. I always see something that makes me think and meet nice veterans who are there too because they are sick. The Hospital isn't very clean but the people are very nice. I'm just glad they have somewhere for a Veteran to go if they don't have insurance. It's better then nothing for sure. Thanks again!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #30 posted by SWAMPIE on September 27, 2001 at 19:11:49 PT
dddd,here's a new MP3 to make,I'll split it !
How could Allah have gone so far as to tell the Rel-Fanatics to kill us for who we are? they make our rugs and sell us drugs,Then they take the lousy money and harm us even more!The most of them you can't educate,because their lust for Allah has filled their minds with hate.Amerikans are sure to be guilty of lust too,but why,oh why are we worse than you?The governments are trying to come up with a master plan,All we really need to say I is so I am.This war may come to the possibility of nukes,Well gee,thanx Shrubya!You make me wanna puke!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #29 posted by Poisoned1528Days on September 27, 2001 at 19:11:06 PT
FoM comment #13
I agree mobility may have hurt us.
The extended family was a good thing
for society and the health of the family.
( Unless - as in many many cases :) -
there was real disfunctionalism )
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #28 posted by SWAMPIE on September 27, 2001 at 18:54:36 PT
Thanx , dddd!
The only terror that I reign is that of flea-killer-bug-bomber!I sure do hope that nothing like what I described could even be remotely possible.By the way,I downloaded your MP3,it was interesting,to say the least.Wish I had a keyboard.I only have a piano/guitars,and can't play when my wife is around.LOL!Someday.......
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #27 posted by dddd on September 27, 2001 at 18:40:29 PT
Good to see you SWAMPIE
Nice goin'....you probably just came up with something terrorists hadnt thought of yet..but I am fairly confident,that since you mentioned it,we will soon be safe from it.Someone monitoring this site will see it,and tomorrow,an investigation into the jet-fuel industry,and all employees will happen,if it hasnt already. ........at least we know you're not a terrorist...dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #26 posted by SWAMPIE on September 27, 2001 at 18:20:56 PT
BIOTOXIN-JET FUEL?
Hi everyone!Sorry I haven't been in touch lately,but I've been busy.That doesn't mean that I haven't been reading C-News,though!Always faithful!LOL!To the point,though..When discussing the possibility of biotoxins being released,is it even remotely possible that jet fuel alone could be used as a carrier of some types without destroying its effectiveness?Even some of these toxins may not be destroyed by heat or raw fuel that is dumped into the atmosphere?Any knowledge on this subject?Just a question.I haven't even heard of this,my idea.Not to scare anyone.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #25 posted by Rambler on September 27, 2001 at 17:54:10 PT
tdm,my friend
your list of priorities;"Phase 1: Eliminate threats to our freedom by other countries. Phase 2: Fix our own problems here at home."Here's my revised list;"Phase 1:Eliminate threats to our freedom by our own country. Phase 2: Eliminate threats to our freedom by other countries. Phase 3: Fix our own problems here at home.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #24 posted by Silent_Observer on September 27, 2001 at 17:24:54 PT
Rambler..
Those pictures tell more than a thousand words...
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #23 posted by tdm on September 27, 2001 at 17:24:27 PT:
nice going puff_tuff!
Couldn't have made the point any better.
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #22 posted by puff_tuff on September 27, 2001 at 17:21:31 PT
Just as absurd
Instead of handing billion dollar cheques over to the Airline Execs. the govt. should just pay for peoples airline tickets.
The airlines will still get the same money and it would be an incentive to get people back on planes.Absurd?
About as absurd as a bailout!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #21 posted by tdm on September 27, 2001 at 17:06:13 PT:
ceo salary
Have you ever seen the compensation package for the typical CEO? Generally speaking (I can't speak for the UAL CEO), a CEO's salary is just a percentage of his/her overall compensation in any given year, and it is usually a small percentage. The bulk of their income comes from stock options and bonuses. The bonuses are sometimes tied to performance, sometimes not. Bottom line, the UAL CEO is using the same tactics (appeal to emotion) when he agrees to forego his salary for the _remainder_ of the year as he used when he made hi teary-eyed plea for billions of our tax dollars.Pay attention to where your emotions come from and make sure they're based on your values and not the values of those who would manipulate you with their words.
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #20 posted by Dave in Florida on September 27, 2001 at 16:39:47 PT
Airlines
Dan B. said "It seems to be that cutbacks should begin at the top, not the bottom."I just heard on the radio that the Presidet of UAL has quit taking his salary for the rest of the year, and most of the other high paid execs.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #19 posted by tdm on September 27, 2001 at 16:31:53 PT:
emperor's clothes
I agree, Rambler, that the U.S. should not have been involved in another country's civil war. That was clearly initiation of force on our part, and was as such an immoral act. But just because our government screwed up in the past doesn't mean I don't want them to defend me now. This government is unfortunately the only one I have. And we at least have a constitution that we can use to correct our domestic problems, given enough tenacity on the part of people like those here at CNews.Phase 1: Eliminate threats to our freedom by other countries.
Phase 2: Fix our own problems here at home.I expounded a bit on this in a previous post:
http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread10977.shtml#7
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #18 posted by Rambler on September 27, 2001 at 16:21:32 PT
Check this out
Who are the terrorists?http://www.emperors-clothes.com/1/rem.htm
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #17 posted by dddd on September 27, 2001 at 16:15:20 PT
FoM
You're not the only one taking grumpy pills,,,,I'm strung out on them,,and I have a nagging Pissed Off Pill habit too!....On the flying/airlines thing,,,first off,I think it was blown way out of proportion,perhaps partially due to a colussion between corporate interests,and our lying,cheatin',shady federal government.I have the same theory on this absurd bailout,in which they are GIVING BILLIONS of our tax money to these bogart corporate airline assholes!.The airlines could have been back to almost normalness in a week.......The sudden insanity of the federal government is beyond absurd,or ridiculous,,it's downright criminal in the way it is taking advantage of the sheeple,and using the media to fake out the masses,and guide the flock to accept what they are doing!.....They have initiated this false "war on terror",and have purposely left it open ended,non-specific,and covert.......Like some sort of psycho,the government is mobilizing troops,and absurd amounts of military hardware around the globe,supposedly targeting an undefined enemy that has been labeled "terror",or"terrorists"....I dont know who is the bigger idiots,,the sheeple,for buying into it,,or the shithead government who are using their power to ream America,in an integrated ploy using the media to successfully misinform,and indoctrinate America into a false version of patriotism,and Americanism.......Personally,,I am flabbergastd,,,I am awestruck in disbelief about what is going on.....If I wasnt awake,,,I'd hope it was a bad dream!.........dddd
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #16 posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 15:42:03 PT
tdm
I'm sure you can tell my my posts that I'm not to pleased either.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #15 posted by tdm on September 27, 2001 at 15:37:13 PT:
bailout
"Why bail out an industry that won't take care of its own people?"I have a better question: Why should the government ever bail out ANY industry for ANY reason? Governments should have (and ours is supposed to have) one role and one role only -- defending the individual lives and property of its citizens from all forms of violent attack or coercion. Any government that does otherwise is practicing statism.Statism means any system that concentrates power in the state at the expense of individual freedom. (We here at CNews are all familiar with that.) As individuals, we agree to give up using force in our social interactions and instead give the government a monopoly in the use of force to protect us. Corporate welfare doesn't fall anywhere under this umbrella of protection from violence. In fact, taking my tax money by force and giving it to any other individual for any purpose other than my protection, violates the very trust I gave the government to begin with.My comments about this particular government handout to the airlines is that it is the most digusting display I've ever seen by an industry in its attempt to get free money. The airlines are using the horrible tragedy of September 11 in an elaborate shell game to line their own pockets. In this game, we are not supposed to notice that the airlines were horribly managed and in severe trouble to begin with. Layoffs were imminent prior to Sep 11. Now in somber, respectful voices they intertwine comments about Sep. 11 with comments about how they need a few BILLION of our hard-earned dollars.Interesting, when they first asked for the money they said they needed $24 billion. Then when it was clear they wouldn't get that, they lowered the number to $17 billion. I finally lost track of how much they claimed to need. If their rock bottom number was $17 billion or $15 billion, why did they ever ask for $24 billion?And where exactly do they think this money is going to come from? Do they think we'll just print up a little extra? In the name of protecting the economy (which is really just an abstract concept) they are taking money out of the pockets of the individuals (who actually exist) without whom the economy wouldn't "exist" to begin with. They are stealing, plain and simple, and the government is complicit.
demoss.org
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #14 posted by Dan B on September 27, 2001 at 15:00:33 PT
If They Can Smuggle Heroin . . .
. . . then they can smuggle anything. You are right, FoM. The biological warfare stuff is far more scary than the chemical . . . much more frightening than what happened at the World Trade Center. I was reading something the other day (maybe it was here; forgive me if this is old news) that said a chemical weapon like Sarin could kill about as many people as were killed at the WTC, but a biological weapon one hundredth the size (say, smallpox) could wipe out 3 to 5 million people--maybe more.And the abundance of air transportation would certainly facilitate the spread of such deadly diseases. Imagine if they let one of those germs loose in an airport!Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #13 posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 14:57:18 PT
Dan
The importance of air travel is something I've never understood. The farm I spent my teenage years in was started in the 1700 and ended contruction in the late 1800s. The house was made of limestone and even had slots where you could shoot from. I lived near the Daniel Boone Homestead I think it was called. The house was expanded 4 times so as a child got married they had a place to live and so on. You could see the difference in the limestones color. Families stayed together. We have become so mobile that we have lost a lot in the process.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #12 posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 14:50:23 PT
Dan I agree
I think I took a grumpy pill today or something because I sure am irritable. Heck I shouldn't say that or someone will thing I took a bad drug! Oh No! LOL!I've been trying to figure out how biological weapons could hurt us since they have more broad range impact then chemical I think. Try this on for size.If they can smuggle heroin couldn't they put something in the heroin that would take a few days to bring to anyone attention? I'm thinking really weird these days.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #11 posted by Dan B on September 27, 2001 at 14:46:07 PT
Thanks, FoM
I was about to post another comment saying that I know you are aware that other industries depend on air travel, but you beat me to it.I think that I was answering a different question than you were asking. I think that you were asking "Why is air travel so important to begin with? Why have we relied so heavily on air transportation up until now?" Whereas, I was answering the question, "Why is it so important to get back to normal in terms of air travel?" Is that correct?Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #10 posted by Dan B on September 27, 2001 at 14:39:57 PT
Having Said All That . . .
However, I fail to see why an industry that makes $300 million every day has to lay off workers after just four days of downtime and a few weeks of adjustment back to normal airline transportation. The problem is that there are far too many fat cats raking in the dough while their employees make minimum wage (or, perhaps, slightly better). It seems to be that cutbacks should begin at the top, not the bottom. If I were making a decision about a government bailout, my first condition would be that the airlines hire back every single employee that they have recently fired. Why bail out an industry that won't take care of its own people? Sounds to me like the airline industry is using the attacks as an excuse for laying of 20% of its workforce, and that really is a shame. The government should not compound this atrocity by rewarding the behavior unconditionally.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #9 posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 14:39:13 PT
Thanks Dan
I do realize that people fly a lot for many reasons but I don't understand why it is that important. Many industries suffer during war times and vacationing isn't that important in my mind I guess. If resorts have to close then they will just become a victim too. I guess I over simplify everything sometimes.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Dan B on September 27, 2001 at 14:27:47 PT:
FoM: On Air Travel
The bulk of commercial airline passengers are business travelers, and I think part of the reason why they are placing so much emphasis on flying is that other businesses will begin to get back to normal when businesses resume flying their people to conventions, conferences, and such. The idea is that if we can just get people to get on planes again, we can then get them to vacation destinations, conference sites, and convention centers. The sooner that happens, the sooner hotels, motels, amusement parks, convention centers, restaurants and other travel-related industries can resume raking in all those American dollars.It really is true that fear can drastically affect the markets. If people are afraid to fly, that affects not only the airlines, but a host of other air transportation-dependent industries. If we take a long time to get back to our normal transportation routines, more people will have to be laid off, thus producing more economic fear, thus sending us farther down the economic spiral.Having said all that, I agree with you that we are far too dependent on air travel. In the age of the Internet and video conference calling, it seems ridiculous that we continue to waste time, energy and fuel to get people from one place to another just to have business conversations. Still, I think that the people whose jobs depend on air travel (directly or indirectly) would beg to differ.Dan B
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 13:45:39 PT
A Comment
I was wondering if anyone else is getting annoyed besides me about how much emphasis is being put on flying. I'm not into flying and I've always thought that the way we fly all over the world is risky. We can bring disease from a foreign land that way so I guess I don't understand the importance of it all. Forgive me if I offend anyone but that is really how I feel.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by puff_tuff on September 27, 2001 at 12:01:16 PT
Have a Listen....
to Richard Cowen from Sept 26.Terrorism and the War on Marijuana. All Power to the Incompetents!Why Everyone Should Distrust the Power Grab In Washington, And Almost Everyone Does.
Pot-TV
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by Silent_Observer on September 27, 2001 at 10:04:38 PT
EJ...
"dumb and getting dumber"...I love it - very funny!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by E_Johnson on September 27, 2001 at 09:41:28 PT
Taliban are smarter than we are
Price of opium before American interfence: $30 per kiloValue of 100 tons of Taliban opium stockpile: $3 millionPrice of opium after America got them to cut production and drive the price up: $700 per kiloValue of 100 tons of Taliban opium stockpile: $70 millionNet profit for the Taliban: $63 millionThe Taliban clearly understand capitalism better than we do and are clearly capable of using our own blind spots against us. These guys appear to be smarter than we are, and I am worried that we may not be able to beat them.Because look at what we just did: we got on our high American moral Drug War horse, and they used it to turn $3 million of opium into $70 million of opium.They are smarter than we are. I can't see a single sign anywhere that anyone in journalism or public policy understands this. We are dumb and getting dumber every day.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by markjc on September 27, 2001 at 09:03:48 PT:
terrorist
John Ashcroft is a terrorist to our civil liberties.
After we take out Osama Bin Laden we need to focus on taking out Ashcroft.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by FoM on September 27, 2001 at 08:39:47 PT
greenfox
Thank You for your comment and the red lettering really looks nice. I don't think I've ever seen anyone lay it out that way. Good to see you!
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by greenfox on September 27, 2001 at 08:16:05 PT
Police State, Inc.
At a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, Ashcroft repeatedly said that the tools in the fight against terrorism should be at least as strong as the ones used to fight gambling, organized crime, and illegal ("illicit" in government parlance) substances. Law enforcement officials, he said, should be able not only to freeze terrorists’ assets, but seize them--"Just like we have for those individuals involved in drug trafficking."So basically, the government can take whatever belongs to you, as long as they can "proove" that you are a terrorist. Give me a bleepin' break. Aren't these the SAME laws that we have been fighting in liu of the "drug war"? And so now these dark government powers which don't belong ANYWHERE are being exploted for mass use simply because they are ALREADY being used? This does not make sense. It's like cooking with food that you KNOW is rotton. This is horrible. God save us all.sly in green, foxy in kind, (and colas, sometimes) ;)-gf
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment