On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:05:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense? Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?
Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John H wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:05:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense? Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?
Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

John H

Searching contrainer ships is a lot different from carving away at the
Constitutional rights of citizens, but I wouldn't expect a d.f. like you
to appreciate the difference.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 16:34:03 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

John H wrote:

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 19:05:24 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
rthlink.net...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"basskisser" wrote in message
om...

It's a defining event for the future of our country. ...

Bingo. There's the problem - the belief that 9/11 was a defining event.
The
administration would have us believe that the event defines the future
indefinitely, and obliterates all other concerns. How perverse.

People compare it to the attack on Pearl Harbor. Personally, I think it's
worse, since it was perpetrated on civilians. The attack on Pearl Harbor
certainly "defined the future indefinitely, and obliterated all other
concerns"...in fact, it did so in a much more profound manner. Our way of
life has hardly changed following 9/11. Compare that to the years
immediately following Pearl Harbor.



I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense? Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?
Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

John H

Searching contrainer ships is a lot different from carving away at the
Constitutional rights of citizens, but I wouldn't expect a d.f. like you
to appreciate the difference.

And I can't believe you have graced my post with a response. I am
truly honored, Harry. Keep in mind, though, that you should spread the
wealth, so to speak. Jealousy is easily come by.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...

I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would
like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense?

"Homeland defense" is too broad a term. But, it suits the suits nicely
because most citizens are too lazy to tweaze the term apart into its
different elements. Just because we need to secure our cargo ports more
effectively (since they are barely secured at all) doesn't mean we have to
give the police Orwellian powers. They are two different aspects of the same
program.

Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?

I have no idea if Harry said that. But the fact is that until voices were
raised last summer, virtually NOTHING was being done about securing cargo
ports. From what I've read, there's still next to nothing being done,
compared with all the big ideas that were floated in the months after 9/11.
However, last week's news mentioned that the CG has been authorized to crack
down on traffic to & from Cuba. The government spokesperson said it was part
of the homeland security effort. Call me crazy, but it sounds more like
pandering to Cuban voters in an election year. That should go far in
protecting us from them pesky A-Rabs.

At least someone woke up recently and has provided a bunch of feds in boats
to patrol the harbors here in Rochester. With enough dramamine, you can
cruise from Canada to here unseen in almost any weather. Most days, it's a
cakewalk. Wait...I remember....it was Louise Slaughter, our Dem
congresswoman. She nagged the appropriate parties until they woke up.

Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

Warning - cynicism ahead: How can that be? We've been shooting at them for
the past year.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:09:33 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

I was referring to the atmosphere of fear which Ashcroft and Bush would
like
us to accept as normal, thereby making it OK to carve away at the
Constitution. All this to chase an enemy we cannot see or define clearly.
Quite a bit different than fighting German and Japanese soldiers.


Doug, are not the Democrats themselves continuously complaining about
the insufficiency of money for homeland defense?

"Homeland defense" is too broad a term. But, it suits the suits nicely
because most citizens are too lazy to tweaze the term apart into its
different elements. Just because we need to secure our cargo ports more
effectively (since they are barely secured at all) doesn't mean we have to
give the police Orwellian powers. They are two different aspects of the same
program.

Hasn't Harry himself
used our lack of searching every container from every container ship
as proof that Bush is falling down on the homeland security issue?

I have no idea if Harry said that. But the fact is that until voices were
raised last summer, virtually NOTHING was being done about securing cargo
ports. From what I've read, there's still next to nothing being done,
compared with all the big ideas that were floated in the months after 9/11.
However, last week's news mentioned that the CG has been authorized to crack
down on traffic to & from Cuba. The government spokesperson said it was part
of the homeland security effort. Call me crazy, but it sounds more like
pandering to Cuban voters in an election year. That should go far in
protecting us from them pesky A-Rabs.

At least someone woke up recently and has provided a bunch of feds in boats
to patrol the harbors here in Rochester. With enough dramamine, you can
cruise from Canada to here unseen in almost any weather. Most days, it's a
cakewalk. Wait...I remember....it was Louise Slaughter, our Dem
congresswoman. She nagged the appropriate parties until they woke up.

Isn't the hardest part of this whole terrorist battle the fact that we
*can't* see or define them clearly?

Warning - cynicism ahead: How can that be? We've been shooting at them for
the past year.


You made the pejorative comment about the 'atmosphere of fear' which
we were to accept as normal. My point was that you contradict yourself
by making such a comment and then complaining that we aren't doing
enough to protect ourselves (in *any* way, shape, or form).

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


You made the pejorative comment about the 'atmosphere of fear' which
we were to accept as normal. My point was that you contradict yourself
by making such a comment and then complaining that we aren't doing
enough to protect ourselves (in *any* way, shape, or form).

John H

John, the suits are using fear to shrink peoples' rights. That's completely
different from beefing up security for a mode of transportation which has
been the victim of almost total neglect. One is common sense. The other is
pandering to the worst elements in the legal community.

On Thu, 04 Mar 2004 22:55:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


You made the pejorative comment about the 'atmosphere of fear' which
we were to accept as normal. My point was that you contradict yourself
by making such a comment and then complaining that we aren't doing
enough to protect ourselves (in *any* way, shape, or form).

John H

John, the suits are using fear to shrink peoples' rights. That's completely
different from beefing up security for a mode of transportation which has
been the victim of almost total neglect. One is common sense. The other is
pandering to the worst elements in the legal community.

If we have something to fear, then measures should be taken to combat
that which is fearsome. The method of combat may be argumentative, but
the basis either exists or it doesn't.

We can't stop the tons of drugs that enter this country, yet you would
expect that we could find an item the size of a suitcase through
increased port security. If we don't find and stop the item overseas,
or keep it from being produced in the first place, then we will not
find it in a container.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!