posted 01-14-2003 01:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeCado:
The commercials equating buying marijuana to supporting terrorists should substitute SUV's for pot.

---

They've already done it. And both sets of commercials are nonsense. Yes, alternative fuel sources should be pursued--It's just a matter of a few generations before the oil starts drying up.

posted 01-14-2003 01:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LoopySanchez:
It's just a matter of a few generations before the oil starts drying up.

---

posted 01-14-2003 01:21 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arch Monkey:
[BWhen I saw the title of this thread. I thought "Finally, some beauty queen is ACTUALY dedicating her reign to world peace."
[/B]

---

"Actualy"?
In what way has that word improved the meaning of this sentence? ARGHH!

posted 01-14-2003 01:30 PM            

The evidence shows that the majority of people involved were from leading famalies in Saudi Arabia. Others were provided passports by Saudi Arabia. They were educated in radical anti-American schools funded by the Saudi Royal family.

The terrorists got their training in camps funded by both the Saudi Royal family, and other wealthy Saudi families. The funds for their expenses when they came to the USA was provided by the Saudi's.

The FIRST plane allowed into and out of the USA after 9/11 was provided by the Saudi Royal family to remove members of Osama Ben Ladin's family to a safe location.

Now, our government says Saudi Arabia is our friend and ally, and has promised to give the Saudi's several billion dollars worth of weapons this year.

My question is: Do we need any more "friends" like the Royal family of Saudi Arabia? And, do we need leaders who pretend the Saudi's are our friends while the Saudi's hands are still dripping with American blood?

posted 01-14-2003 01:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by TDR:
More like in your children's lifetime. And the problems created by dwindling supply begin decades before the last drop goes up the pipe. You could argue those problems are here now.

---

Dwindling supply will cause the price of fuel to rise. Causing two effects which most environmentalists and SUV-bashers will like: 1. People will drive less because it costs more, and; 2. People will buy more fuel efficient vehicles because it makes sense to their wallet, not out of some Bill Maherian sense of moral superiority. In other words, the market will work. And, the car companies will come up with ways of producing safer cars, SUV's, and van like vessels which, for all I know, will employ 100% clean solar powered drivetrains and have lasers for both avoiding objects (pedestrians and vehicles) as well as coming in handy for urban defense. Just kidding.

posted 01-14-2003 01:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mediocre_player:
Bill - re: racial profiling. I fit these characteristics. However, I happen to be a normal guy who cares about nothing but music and computer science (well, maybe geeky normal.) Why do I need to be humilated @ an airport or any other place for that matter? Because I have a certain name? A certain ethnic origin? Is that what the US is about? How is that different from a country that mistreats women for instance?

There is no doubt that the events on that dreadful day rank with the worst crimes ever committed in the history of mankind. However, I had nothing to do with it. I dont see why I should be treated any differently because of it. Luckily, all my US friends are super nice about it and realize that pre or post 9/11 I'm the same guy. But when I read comments such as these, or that tend to grossly over-generalize by saying: "Hey, 9/11, lets go kick Iraq's butt.", it makes me feel that you're being very vengeful and in the course can (and will) blindly harm as many (actually, much more) innocents as those who fell on that day.

With that said, I've always felt that culturaly I belong to the US more than my own country and really had the best two years of my life studying there. I just love that place. To know that the feeling is not mutual through no fault of my own just makes me sad.
Peace,
--m

[This message has been edited by mediocre_player (edited 01-14-2003).]

---

I don't think it's a case of trying to humiliate anyone, though there are some ignorant people in security uniforms who will surely abuse their power. (This will happen even more so if they become unionized in addition to federalized so that they can essentially NEVER be fired, only moved to a different department.) We need to have guidelines to make sure that nobody has their rights trampled by such people under the guise of maintaining security.

But we do have to accept that profiling, when people of a certain ethnicity have committed all of a certain type of crime, can be a good start for preventing future similar crimes. This is not to say that ONLY people of that ethnicity should be searched--This would give all other ethnicities a license to commit the same crime without fear of being a suspect. But to check little old black ladies and four year old white kids with the same frequency as people of middle eastern appearance between the ages of 17 and 40 is just plain illogical.

I think the following analogy will explain why it would be illogical not to use the tool of profiling to prevent terrorism:

If white KKK members kept being convicted of burning crosses in the front yards of African-Americans, would it be considered racial profiling the next time it happened to narrow your search to white males from the start ? Or would you randomly question an equal percentage of blacks and whites in the community, in the interest of avoiding "profiling"?

As I said, I agree that all airport searches should be done with respect and consideration. And again, I don't mean to offend, I'm just trying to express my idea for a fair and logical way to prevent future hijackings. I've certainly been wrong before. I keep very open ears on the subject.

Peace,

posted 01-14-2003 01:50 PM               

The problem is that it became a bone of contention for the African-American community. Black males under 40 routinely got pulled over on the road. It became a joke, DWB, driving while black. It caught a lot of skips and scofflaws, but it created a backlash. It was "disacrimination" and racism. So now they will tell you they don't do it anymore.

posted 01-14-2003 01:54 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeCado:
I agree, and just this morning my wife & I were discussing "whatever happened to the terrorists in Afghanistan? Why is there no news about hunting those murderers down?" If Iraq was that big a threat, Iran would start a war with them.

---

More "curiouser" is the fact that most of the bad guys on 9/11 were Saudi Arabians..."Dubya" says they're our allies!

So why were we carpet bombing Afghanistanis?...Practicing?

Ooooooh....what's that smell?

posted 01-14-2003 01:59 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr Froon:
"Actualy"?
In what way has that word improved the meaning of this sentence? ARGHH!

---

I thought that if I had said.

"Finally, some beauty queen is dedicating her reign to world peace."

It does not carry the same meaning. By saying "ACTUALLY" (sorry about the spelling) I am impying that although beauty queens often give lip service to world peace, the rarely DO anything about it. It was a joke, though apparently not a good one.

Here is the Merriam Webster definition of "actually". As you can see my usage of the word was correct. IE in point of fact to suggest something unexpected.

posted 01-14-2003 02:08 PM               

CB--Actually, Colin Powell has earned more respect from me as a critical thinker than any other member of the current administration. However, the Bush admninistration does appear to be pro-war, and postures and speaks as if their views matter and nothing else--including weapons inspector’s findings (or not findings). Bush seems to be playing the old Spanish Inquisition game of “I say he’s a heritic/witch/danger to the world. Let’s strap him to a barrel and drag him downstream. If he drowns, he will be proven guilty. If he lives it will be proof that the devil has protected him.”

#2: I have seen no picture, nor been handed any misguided idea, of a united world. However, I have seen support for a unilateral U.S. invasion of Iraq. I wouldn't say that the world is united. I'm also not terribly concerned about that. Can you remember a time when the world was actually united? And if so, what medication are you on?

CB--Just the other day from his ranch in Crawford, he was being questioned by reporters about recent developments between the US and North Korea. Bush said “the world has already spoken with a single voice against Iraq, and now they need to do the same regarding North Korea.” (Note: this is a paraphrase, as I don’t have the article here in hand).

#3: No, "unilateral" and "one voice" are not mutually exclusive here. Many people can have voices while a few are willing to act decisively.

CB--I’m acting decisevely too, just not violently.

That's because the world is used to voicing/needing/wanting and having the U.S., often unilaterally, having to make the tough calls and do the heavy lifting. Just because the Marshall Plan was driven by the U.S. doesn't mean it was NOT supported by others in the world. Many, particularly the Europeans, have the best of both worlds. They sit back and have the luxury of occaisionally supporting and occaisionally criticizing our efforts while spending a fraction of their resources on defending them. Nothing new here. The British are usually the exception to that rule.

CB--I’m not trying to say that the US hasn’t done good in the world. But to paint the US as “pure good” and Saddam as “pure evil” is neither accurate nor productive.

#4: I am "actuating peace" (clever verb, nice copy) by supporting an aggressive stance toward those who stand to further destabilize our world and attempting to keep in context naive one-dimensional chants about peace, love, and harmony. I suspect my "actuation" would not be in line with yours, but I think you are after effort here more than policy. I think. I don't know. Whatever.

CB--I neither feel that destablization can be lessened by adding yet more instability nor that my chants about peace, love, and harmony are one-dimensional. I assume by one-dimensional you feel that I reel at the current administration because of partisan politics. Is that accurate? I’ve said it before, but, I’d be against the same actions by Bush if he were a green party representative (I’m a green). I abhore Clinton’s diversionary tactics mentioned above by Loopy, as much as I do Bush’s war calls.