Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users
Google

Web Adequacy.org
Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
Poll
Whom must we never forget?
Me 20%
Me 12%
Me 19%
Me 30%
Me 18%

Votes: 341

 Why the Bombings Mean That We Must Support My Politics

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Sep 12, 2001
 Comments:
Based on a real story

Update [2001-9-13 9:45:1 by jsm]:Based on another one

Update [2001-9-13 9:45:1 by jsm]:and another

Of course the World Trade Center bombings are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.

justice

More stories about Justice
Seeking a Sensible Tomorrow: The Media Marketing Accountability Act
The Law Fought The Law And Nobody Won
Goths and Vampirism - A final solution?
Marion 'Suge' Knight to be released - Young white rap fans in danger ?
Dungeons and Dragons: Don't Let it Happen to Your Kid
An Essay on Microsoft
Arriving in Ethiopia, West of Somalia
Newsflash! America's holy war begins!
Twelve Steps Towards Eradicating Terrorism
Expanding equality under the law
Please Don't Kill Osama Bin Laden
New Crimes, New Punishments, A New America
Torture - it's inevitable, so lets do it right !
Repeal the Drunk Driving Laws Now

More stories by
jsm

The Gay Tax
LNUX = FC?
Linux Linux Linux -- Part One -- Trying to Be a Hero
A Declaration of Independence for the Indebted States of America
Kill Yr Idols: Nelson Mandela
Open Letter to a Stripper
Milosevic Goes Free, Thanks to Godwin's Law!
Tax the Childless, Double Votes for Parents
Luv Yr Enemies -- Jesus Christ
Open Letter to the USA: Please Don't Drown Me
The Real Darwin Awards
Harnessing the Computational Power of Autism
'English Style Lovers', with jsm
Kill Yr Idols - Donald Knuth
Linux Linux Linux Part Two - Crossing the Linux Fault Threshold
Teaching Astrology In Schools
Chip Hell -- the AMD story
We Licke Icke
Slashdot Subscriptions and VA Software -- what's going on?
Wicca and the Insult to Religion
Linux Zealot and Economics 101
A New Kind of Feminist Science
Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.

Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.

Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.

Of course the World Trade Center attacks are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.

It would be a fitting memorial.


psychotic (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by alprazolam on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 11:40:43 AM PST
You can bet if I ever see Raymond in an airport, I'll be making sure he's not on my flight. Disturbing people assume that the best response to tragedy is to abandon reason and order. No matter what political differences I may have with the current administration I'm glad that cool heads have prevailed and the U.S. has not erupted into widespread vigilantism.


Different opinion (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 12:16:36 PM PST
If I meet ESR in an airport, I hope he *will* be on my flight. Having someone with the wherewithall to respond to armed criminals makes me feel much safer than just having to sit and let suicidal crazies do whatever they want. The plane that wend down in Pa. seems to have crashed away from its target because some heroic, unarmed passengers tried to jump the hijackers. If the passengers had been armed too, they might have succeeded in taking control of the plane back.


You miss the point (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 12:35:19 PM PST
ESR would not do it in reality, since he is a cowardly geek hiding behind his weapons.


Guns on planes (none / 0) (#39)
by Ardeaem on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 10:14:43 AM PST
The argument that guns should be able to be carried onto planes is ridiculous for several reasons.

1. Guns are useless without bullets. Bullets have combustible agents in them. These are extremely dangerous on a plane.

2. Firing a gun in a plane is dangerous to everyone on board, as the cabin is pressurized. A stray bullet could easily hit the sides and cause the cabin to depressurize. This would be very bad.

3. If you let the 'good guys' have them on planes, the potential 'bad guys' get them too. All a bad guy has to do is grab one person and put a gun to their head, as a hostage. Do you want 30 macho guys with guns on that plane? I certainly don't.

Ardeaem


Guns on Planes (1.00 / 1) (#66)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 22nd, 2001 at 10:09:08 AM PST
The argument against firearms on planes is ridiculous for several reasons.
1. Bullets are dangerous when fired in confined spaces full of people, but are much less dangerous than planes being flown by the Osama bin Pilot's Association. Life isn't risk free.
2. Firing a gun in a plane is NOT dangerous to the cabin pressurization. IF a bullet goes through the fuselage, the hole will whistle and leak some air. Holes can be completely fixed with chewing gum, duct tape, or wet toilet paper wads.
3. Nobody posted your strawman about "30 macho guys with guns". Police are arrested at 840 times the rate of normal people who get Concealed Carry permits. Police also wound or kill innocent people at 11 TIMES the rate of CCW carriers. (that's 1100% more !!) American citizens who carry concealed firearms are safer than law enforcement.
4. Just because you sit quivering in your own puddle doesn't mean everyone should.


Not dangerous to pressurization? (none / 0) (#67)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 24th, 2001 at 11:11:21 AM PST
<<original quote>>
>2. Firing a gun in a plane is NOT dangerous to >the cabin pressurization. IF a bullet goes >through the fuselage, the hole will whistle and >leak some air. Holes can be completely fixed >with chewing gum, duct tape, or wet toilet paper >wads.

I beg to differ, as would anyone on Aloha Flight 243. In re: the ignorant statement about fixing such a hole, I refer you to http://www.disastercity.com/ghost/sfdecomp/

Further, a small hole in the pressurized fuselage of an aging plane (not to say that these planes were of sufficient age or fatigue) has the potential to cause stresses to other minor defects, causing a chain reaction of minor failures leading to a catastrophic fuselage disintegration. Check your facts before jerking your knee next time.

Signed,
An NRA member, registered Republican, holder of a concealed carry permit in the city of New York, and owner of firearms (I know how many - that's my business and mine alone, don't need folks knocking on my door).


 
moronic opinion (none / 0) (#13)
by alprazolam on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 01:15:00 PM PST
If unarmed passengers on one hijacked plane can take it down, why not others? If the passengers had been armed, what guarantee was there that the hijackers wouldn't have had guns? Do you think an average civilian or a trained killer would get in the first shot?


First shot (1.00 / 1) (#41)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 11:27:28 AM PST
As an airline passenger I do not have to get the first shot off. I can still resist terrorists. I am not staying seated in the rear of the plane and wait for it to crash. The rest of you can set there or join me in attempting to influence the action. It appears those on the Pittsburg plane did that. Count me in. "Wick"


 
revised standard hijacking protocol version 3.2 (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by yami on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 05:15:31 PM PST
Your standard-issue hijacker only wants to reroute the plane to some exotic destination and hold the passengers hostage for a while. Therefore, it is in the passengers' best interests to behave nicely, as chances are they'll survive the ordeal. This mindset, and not a lack of arms, is what prevents the fat ol' businessmen on the plane from smothering the hijackers in beer gut until the plane goes back on course.

If all of the passengers on the plane had been suicidal crazies, the hijackers would never have gotten out of their seats. Clearly the solution is to mindfuck the American public until we're a nation of hardened fanatic warriors.

(NB! The rules of hijacking have probably been altered as a result of yesterday's events. Please consult your doctor before beginning any kamikaze training regime.)

___
Why should we plant when there are so many mongongo nuts in the world?

Warriors (1.00 / 1) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 02:21:16 PM PST
<I>Clearly the solution is to mindfuck the American public until we're a nation of hardened fanatic warriors.</I>

Warriors are better than sheep.






Amen, My Brother (none / 0) (#60)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 12:06:49 PM PST
Bravo, however, I add the following quote:

"It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion."

-- William Ralph Inge, D.D.
1860 - 1954

urs,

Ken



 
I agree with ESR! (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 06:57:17 PM PST
Who stopped the plane that DIDN'T make it to its destination? NORMAL EVERYDAY AMERICANS! They bum rushed the terrorists and that plane crashed in the middle of nowhere rather into a city.

Everyone carrying guns doesn't increase the amount of violence, it decreases it. You have to learn to hold your temper a whole lot more when a fight means you get shot and killed. You have to act with more respectfully towards everone. And criminals are scared shitless.


Except that they didn't have guns (1.00 / 1) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 04:25:04 AM PST
You just disproved your own argument. Those people were unarmed.


Except that what did the terrorists have? (1.00 / 1) (#20)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 02:25:28 PM PST
to be in the passenger area, the terrorists would had to have bought tickets, obtained boarding passes, had their luggage scanned, passed through various security checkpoints, and walked onto the plane.

current airport security is already very high, so how do you suppose the terrorists managed to hijack a plane filled with 100s of people, using only their exotic good looks? Obviously they had weapons of some kind, and odds are low that the weapon was anything as simple as a knife, which is hard to use to overpower 100s of people simultaneously.
i really don't know -- is it reasonable to theorize that they found a way to get firearms on board, despite the existing security measures? if so, does this lend any credence to the idea that by ensuring no non-terrorists have equivalent weapons, we encourage hijacking?

discuss amongst yourselves.


It was knives (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 04:13:50 PM PST
Apparently, they did it with knives. According to cell phone calls made from the planes, 3-5 hijackers pulled knives on the attendants of flight, kill a couple of them to get the pilots attention, and took over from there.

I don't completely agree with ESR, but he's not a fanatic. He is merely a normal person disturbed by the slow erosion of personal freedom, by those who would trade personal liberty for a bit of temporary security.

Didn't Benjamin Franklin have something to say about that?


ESR is a fucking lunatic, No question about it. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 06:58:23 PM PST
Didn't Benjamin Franklin have something to say about that?

ESR is no Ben Franklin.

He is merely a normal person

No he is not normal. Check out his website.


 
Franklin (none / 0) (#62)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 12:51:35 PM PST
"Eternal Vigilance is the Price of liberty"

"The tree of Liberty must constantly be refreshed with the blood of patriots"

"Eat to live, don't live to eat"

Our boy franklin.


 
Explosives (none / 0) (#30)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 07:40:34 AM PST
Apparently, they had (or claimed to have) bombs. That's a reasonable incentive to keep your hands off someone. I guess the Pittsburgh pilot heard what they intended to do and said "Hell, we're gonna die anyway..."


 
weapons on planes (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 07:45:58 AM PST
Given that aeroplane cleaners aren't the best paid people on the planet / it's fairly easy to become one. Taping a gun under a chair isn't rocket science.

(These were the conclusions of a UK TV documentary after Lockerby)

It's also probably possible to get some high-tech ceramic guns through x-rays etc?

MX


 
and while you learn to hold your temper... (none / 0) (#50)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 15th, 2001 at 06:46:00 AM PST
... how many people must die of gunshot-wounds first?

Just my .02.


Sticks and Stones (1.00 / 1) (#61)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 12:11:49 PM PST
How many people must be beaten about the head and face with rocks before we outlaw them?

How many people will be drowned before we outlaw personal ownership of tubs and sinks?

WOn't someone think of the children!

Bah, disgust.

If i offer you a penny for your thoughts, and you give me your two cents.... who is stealing all that extra money?

Rich White Bankers, Baby. Fear them, guns can only give a few score. They take out millions.

Urs, (Outlaw my hands before they choke u)

Ken.



 
but if not ESR ... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by venalcolony on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 12:50:44 PM PST
... who would land the plane after everyone was shot?


---
The difference between trolling and life is life doesnt have to make sense.

 
I'd just tell security who he is. (5.00 / 2) (#11)
by elenchos on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 12:55:58 PM PST
"Hey! Look everyone! We got us a celebrity on this flight!"

Airport Security: "Oh yeah? What's he famous for?"

"He's a vocal advocate of gun rights, and has in particular called it our patriotic duty as enemies of the established economic order to carry guns with us everywhere! Just in case, you know..."

Security: "Sir! Do you mind stepping this way for a moment..."

Well, they might take me with them, but that's ok. I like cops and if you're nice they let you hold their handcuffs and turn on the siren (actual experience in school!).


I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill


Re: I'd just tell security who he is. (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 02:16:07 PM PST
Well, they might take me with them, but that's ok. I like cops and if you're nice they let you hold their handcuffs and turn on the siren (actual experience in school!).

who'd you turn in that time?


 
Let us not forget (4.00 / 4) (#7)
by Peter Johnson on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 12:38:43 PM PST
The editors of this website are not alone in having a less than favorable opinion of Mr. Raymond. Linus Torvalds has also uttered a few words on the subject.
--Peter
Are you adequate?
--Peter
Are you adequate?

Are you really that stupid? (0.25 / 4) (#19)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 10:22:55 AM PST
Look at the date on this letter, fool.


 
Cut and paste this and send it to esr@thyrsus.com (5.00 / 6) (#8)
by dmg on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 12:46:03 PM PST
Mr Raymond. I have just read your article at newsforge entitled "Decentralism against terrorism -- first lessons from the 9/11 attack"

While not questioning your right to freedom of speech, I do take issue with the timing of your article, and the way in which you seem to be indulging in cheap political points scoring at a time when many people still lie trapped in the rubble of the Pentagon and World Trade Center.

I respectfully request that you withdraw your misinformed, inflammatory and hate-fuelled article, and publish it at a later date, when it will not seem in such poor taste.

I'm sure you will understand with hindsight the incredible insensitivity and lack of taste which you have demonstrated here, and will want to salvage what remains of your reputation, and much more importantly, the reputation of Linux and Open Source Software.

A concerned reader of adequacy.org

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

I've posted this to esr (4.50 / 2) (#10)
by dmg on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 12:55:42 PM PST
And I urge all adequacy readers to do likewise. Use your junk account if you are scared of Raymond tracking you down and shooting you.

Perhaps together we can teach this gun-happy imbecile a lesson in taste and decency.

Which coming from adequacy would be nicely ironic.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
you, sir, are a statist villan (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 01:00:21 PM PST
I respectfully request that you withdraw your misinformed, inflammatory and hate-fuelled article, and publish it at a later date, when it will not seem in such poor taste.

Anyone who thinks this
it is arguable that the lawmakers who disarmed all the non-terrorists on those four airplanes, leaving them no chance to stop the hijackers, bear part of the moral responsibility for this catastrophe.
is obviously not going to take your suggestion to silence his FoS very seriously. I'd suggest hiring a few jackbooted thugs to deliver the message, but I fear for their lives.


You know... (none / 0) (#69)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Oct 25th, 2001 at 09:17:59 PM PST
I'm all for the right to bear arms, but there are good reasons not to do so on an airliner.

For starters, you risk puncturing the skin of the aircraft, and decompressing the cabin. That's a BAD thing.

A crowded environment like an airliner is an un-good place to be firing anything bigger than a squirtgun.

One of the favorite arguments of gun rights advocates (which I have to admit being) is that the bad guys will always have guns. This is essentially null and void on an airliner, since close checks are alot easier.


But does anyone really need to be reminded that these men carried SMALL KNIVES? The sorts of weapons they used didn't raise any eyebrows simply because THEY WERE LEGAL on an aircraft. It frankly blows my mind that what happened aboard the Pennsylvania crash didn't happen aboard some of the other planes.


 
A Response to Erica S. Raymond (4.00 / 2) (#15)
by Logical Analysis on Wed Sep 12th, 2001 at 05:33:44 PM PST
We've been hearing for years from various propaganda outlets about the loss of our so-called rights. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it.

The truth is that government surveillance systems have done great work towards increasing the freedom of everyday God-fearing Americans. How, you ask?

As an obvious example, the video cameras installed in your local convenience stores and banks have led to the capture of countless criminals. Similar systems installed to monitor public areas in Great Britain have done wonders for reducing the crime rate.

I could go on, but I think the intelligent readers of Adequacy can think of their own examples. Clearly, adopting surveillance is a win-win situation for all involved (except of course for the criminals).

Carnivore, and other government monitoring equipment like it, are basically the internet equivalent of security cameras.

That being said, we must ask who is afraid of internet monitoring. The answer is simple... The same people who are afraid of surveillance in the local branch of your bank: Criminals.

E. Raymond, and others like him, tremble in fear when they realize what internet monitoring will mean: No more free copies of MS Office from WaReZd00d-007. No more kiddie porn, especially kiddie porn disguised as "anime." No more drug dealing, and especially no more passing around blueprints of the Pentagon.

Raymond's answer is that every citizen should go around carrying a loaded weapon so they can shoot bad guys. Somehow this vigilante justice is supposed to prevent crime. Answering this absurdity would take a book in itself, but let's just say that there is a good reason vigilante justice was replaced by courtroom trials and innocent until proven guilty.

In conclusion, I hope that all Americans support the continued deployment of freedom-enhancing internet monitoring devices. It will mean a safer future for us and for our children. In fact, as an owner of a small ISP, I have contacted the FBI to specifically request that they install Carnivore on my network. I urge other technology companies to do the same. We must show our support for the American way of life.

P.S.: Various software communists are developing programs to circumvent internet monitoring. It is imperative that all freedom-loving people do their best to stop the spread of this technology!

Praise Allah!


That's not really that logical of an analysis...=/ (1.00 / 2) (#21)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 02:33:53 PM PST
Every year crime statistics go down. If they keep going down they will eventually reach zero.

If the crime will eventually reach zero then why should we waste money putting up surveilance equipment?

After the Columbine incident (by the way school shootings are down significantly from the 1950s) my High School put cameras in every building. They didn't tell anyone, not even the teachers. We just came back to school from winter break to find that nearly every point on school grounds had at least one camera pointed directly at it. This school had never had any discipline problems (a couple minor fights occurred while I attended though--but no injuries resulted). I personally think this a ridiculous waste of money, especially since this occurred during the funding cutbacks in education that resulted from the economic slowdown.

Another point:
Why is the "safety level" (measured by number of locked doors, security cameras and other "safety enhancing" devices) of some schools greater than some prisons. What effect can this constant surveilance have on our children? How would you feel to know that you are being watched....every move you make--being stalked by your own government--not because you committed a crime, but because you MAY committ a crime.

The problem with the surveilance of everything is that it assumes everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

Finally:
Have you ever read the book "1984"? In this book EVERYTHING was monitored. The government could watch you eat, sleep, shower, and...whatever else was allowed. Because everyone was monitorred, they could be jailed just for mentioning something that was illegal. (Very similar to the way it is now where if some kid mentions blowing up the school,in any fashion--even jokingly--they get sent to juvenile school)

This is all a result of these "freedom enhancing" monitoring devices. Children bring a water gun (color:translucent green) to school and come home with a criminal record.

Monitoring devices are unable to create freedom. Many laws were made because there were certain circumstances in which enforcing them was impossible. In most of these circumstances it would be lunacy to say that the law needed to be enforced. Today we have the technology to enforce them. As always technology is ahead of reason.

Remember this if you ever get a citation for jaywalking across a street which had no cars on it as far as you could see.


 
Good definition of freedom (1.00 / 2) (#23)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 04:30:15 PM PST
<I>P.S.: Various software communists are developing programs to circumvent internet monitoring. It is imperative that all freedom-loving people do their best to stop the spread of this technology! </i>

I do hope you are being intentionally ironic. Otherwise, your cry of, "Protect freedom by restricting freedom!" rings hollowly.

Is liberty the price of safety? If so, you are paying not only with your own liberty, but with the freedoms of others, as well. And, if so, I will not suffer the benign dictatorship of corporations that is slowly evolving from the destruction of our essential liberties.

Explain, please, how Carnivore could have stopped this horrible event? In fact, ask yourself that question with every proposed policy or bill-- how would this have stopped this inhuman act?

The government is already monitoring cell phone calls. How you feel having the government listening in on your sex-talks with your significant other while you travel? (I guess a lot of cell phone traffic is sex-talk, according to one NSA employee I know.)

In one episode of Babylon 5 (yeah, I am geek. What of it?), the leader of the Night Watch said, "The only people with something to fear are the ones with something to hide." But we all have something to hide.

If you still espouse the intrusive monitoring of your every action, watch seasons 3 and 4 of B5. Pay particular attention to the night watch. Then tell me, is this a group you want controlling your life?

A society that doesn't flinch at monitoring every action by every citizen is a country that will not flinch from punishing thought-crimes. Soon your own neighbor can turn you in for saying that George W. Bush is a moronic weenie (which he is-- I can prove it with an Excel spreadsheet).


freedom (none / 0) (#49)
by Logical Analysis on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 05:47:13 PM PST
Explain, please, how Carnivore could have stopped this horrible event? In fact, ask yourself that question with every proposed policy or bill-- how would this have stopped this inhuman act?

Mr. Laden is known to have used the internet to communicate. The more we know about what he is planning, the better off we are!

The government is already monitoring cell phone calls. How you feel having the government listening in on your sex-talks with your significant other while you travel? (I guess a lot of cell phone traffic is sex-talk, according to one NSA employee I know.)

I couldn't care less... None of the phone sex I would engage in would be harmful to national security, so I am not afraid of those who protect our national security listening in on my calls.

You don't need to be in the NSA to listen to cell phones anyway.. they operate on radio frequencies just like any other radio, and can be easily monitored with a scanner. Anyone who thinks there is any privacy on cell phones (or any phone for that matter) is a fool.

A society that doesn't flinch at monitoring every action by every citizen is a country that will not flinch from punishing thought-crimes. Soon your own neighbor can turn you in for saying that George W. Bush is a moronic weenie (which he is-- I can prove it with an Excel spreadsheet).

Yes, he may not be known for his high intelligence, but it isn't illegal to state this fact.


Bin Laden in Afgan Cyber Cafe? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 11:50:07 AM PST
Mr. Laden is known to have used the internet to communicate.

From all the documentaries I've seen, Bin Laden isn't a user of electricity let alone the Internet (he refuses to have any electrical equipment anywhere near him, forgotten the reason why, either to do with assasination or bugging).

I couldn't care less...

... until it happens to you, and when you're upset and try and complain everyone else will use the same argument against you. The arguments for freedom against temporary safety have been made many times (power encourages abuse, etc).

Anyone who thinks there is any privacy on cell phones (or any phone for that matter) is a fool.

Bear in mind this is the USA only. The rest of the world uses GSM which is strongly encrypted. In the UK the NSA will still listen in but using some of the 20,000 BT phones lines going in to Menwith Hill used specially for USA to spy on UK citizens.


 
god fearing (none / 0) (#48)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 05:34:16 PM PST
I am no God fearing man. Does that make me any less of a man? I think not. Go read some books about that are on the other side to maintain a balanced view of so-called "God fearing men" and "non God fearing man".

Quite frankly I am really getting offended by all this prayer mumbo jumbo and the politicians taking their time to get in front of the camera and push on something. It's a giant photo-op for these people. They'll go right back to hating each other. They've done it before -- they'll do it again. They'll go right back to to partisan bullshit.

It is a real shame that something as awful as this is required to get this country -- this world -- to unite. It is a shame it takes a group of peoples radical opinions and by extension of those opinions the deaths of thousands of people to make us get a clue. How many years have we been constantly bombing sections of the Middle East? Yet how many Americans shed a tear for their families? How many Americans shed a tear when the families of military men and innocent civilians of the Middle Eastern countries lose their relatives because they believe in something? I'm willing to say that there are very few. Very few people even comprehend the amount of terror our own country imposes on other countries in the name of "national security" or the "drug war" or some such thing.

I am so sad. Sad that we can rationalize anything. The terrorists have rationalized the killing of thousands in this country and their own country and their neighboring countries. We have rationalized the killing of thousands for the sake of money and power. Those countries fight because they have a religious belief (so they say). They take that religious belief and compound it into something of their own. They interpret it. Just as men of this country and many other countries have interpreted their religion to mean something it probably wasn't intended for.

The whole point of this is my opportunity to rant and I thank all online discussion boards for that opportunity. The primary point is to point out that we are not innocent. The killing of civilians in the WTC and the plane in PA and the plane in the Pentagon is not justified. The terrorists claim it is but it isn't. The fact remains, however, that it happened and it happened for a reason, no matter how unjustified the killing of civilians is.

Innocence is dead.


 
a note about GB (none / 0) (#52)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 04:28:34 AM PST
the crimerate has gone up in ther UK, all video cameras do is make it possible to catch the people afterwards. We have become a nation of suspects.


The crime rate is caused by one thing only (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by dmg on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 06:57:47 PM PST
Demographics.

More young men == more violent crime.

all else is just BS.

time to give a Newtonian demonstration - of a bullet, its mass and its acceleration.
-- MC Hawking

 
Bravo! (none / 0) (#18)
by Platypus on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 07:38:18 AM PST
That's an excellent bit of satire. Now I have a link to throw at all of the people trying to take advantage of this terrible situation to promote themselves and/or their political preconceptions. Thank you.


 
Thank you (4.00 / 4) (#25)
by jin wicked on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 09:09:22 PM PST
for the excellent article. I am not currently in a mental state capable of commenting in any more depth, but I did want you to know I appreciated what you said.


"Ars longa, vita brevis...Art is long, life is short."

 
More real articles this could have been based on (3.00 / 1) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 10:15:54 PM PST
Here and here.


 
Me (3.00 / 3) (#27)
by chloedancer on Thu Sep 13th, 2001 at 11:49:59 PM PST
I just don't think I'm getting a good enough percentage of the votes in these results.


 
Top notch (3.00 / 2) (#29)
by codemonkey uk on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 05:31:56 AM PST
What, are you Chris Morris or something? A great piece of satire.


 
Another candidate basis article (5.00 / 1) (#32)
by ciphergoth on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 07:48:06 AM PST
Possibly the most tenuous of all. I think I'm on the same political side as Oram, but this is just a laughable attempt to justify those politics.

We need the courage to look beyond abstractions, Andy Oram, O'Reilly.

Paul Crowley, www.ciphergoth.org


 
Thank you (4.00 / 1) (#40)
by mcgee on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 10:17:45 AM PST
Pointed here by Media Grok, I was heartened to hear voices of sanity amid the noise that seems so prevalent over the last few days. The satire is brilliant; combined with alprazolam's response one has a potent combination of lampoon and rhetoric.

I have quoted this article on my website; it joins my own comments on the tragedy.

Joshua McGee
Thousand Oaks, California, USA
mcgees.org


Sanity (1.00 / 1) (#63)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 12:56:15 PM PST
Sanity is an illusion that has its limits.
Stupidity has no known limit.

There is, of course, a difference between insanity and stupidity, but suspending that fact for a moment: Let us encourage a more aggressive response on the part of passangers during a highjack. Only 1 of the 4 planes had people with the courage and needed belief in no other solution to handle it.

Where is Air-Rage when it is need, i ask.

Alas,

Ken


Foreknowledge, not courage, set them apart (none / 0) (#65)
by ciphergoth on Sat Sep 22nd, 2001 at 03:19:12 AM PST
Passengers on the first three planes were sensibly doing what the crew, in accordance with training, told them to: sit tight, let's wait 'till we land some random place and the negotiation starts, since that's what hijacking's all about.

The passengers on the last plane revolted because they had heard the fate of the other three planes on their cellphones, and realised it was worth risking, or even sacrificing, their lives to prevent that happening again.


 
Cute site (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 01:19:54 PM PST
Very clever!

I just wanted to note that NewsForge's posting of Eric's column doesn't necessarily mean we endorse what he said. NewsForge is a news and opinions site, and some of the stories and many of the comments on the site offer options we don't agree with.

In fact, we posted a counter-view to ESR's column this afternoon: http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/09/14/1714245&mode=thread

Grant


Re: Cute site (none / 0) (#51)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Sep 15th, 2001 at 06:52:48 AM PST
I just wanted to note that NewsForge's posting of Eric's column doesn't necessarily mean we endorse what he said.

Perhaps, but who cares: he's a member of your parent company's board (you didn't mention that, of course), and it sure gave you lots of extra ad impressions at a time when nobody really cared about open source news.

Don't you have any self-respect?


Self-respect? (none / 0) (#53)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 07:44:32 AM PST
Sooo, what you're saying is *any* Web site with self respect would avoid commenting on the terrorist actions during this time of tragedy? After all, any commentary could be accused of trolling for page views.

You've got a long list of sites to email or list, accusing them of no self-respect. You'd better start working on that!

Grant from NewsForge




 
me (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 14th, 2001 at 03:07:17 PM PST
how many times can you use "me" and "my view" and "i am right" without sounding like an idiot?


hmm (1.00 / 1) (#64)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Sep 21st, 2001 at 01:01:26 PM PST
By common laws of etiquette and, of course, common perception... I would say he can manage it.... 17 to 31 more times.

Ur Welcome.

Ken

Stupid ?, Stupid Answer
(Outlaw Hands before they choke People
Won't someone think of the children!)


 
Permission to reprint? (none / 0) (#54)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 10:27:11 AM PST
I love this article; however, my company has some rather strict rules on reposting copyrighted materials. Can I get permission to reprint this in its entirety on our internal discussion board?


A few restrictions (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by Peter Johnson on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 11:43:54 AM PST
Give credit, provide a link to the original material and have fun.
--Peter
Are you adequate?

 
Gonna bitchslap RMS now as well? (none / 0) (#57)
by Anonymous Reader on Mon Sep 17th, 2001 at 01:06:46 PM PST
Heck, RMS made Slashdot front page for similar (if less blunt and specific) statements of opinion.

Hm, where is that old quote from ESR about RMS coming along on a target shooting and doing quite well? Dirty GNU hippie or wannabe libertoony mediawhore? Is there a dichotomy? MUST WE ROCK?


 
i might want to syndicate this (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous Reader on Tue Sep 18th, 2001 at 12:44:27 PM PST
jsm,

I am an editor at a San Francisco news syndication service and I am interested in syndicating this post. If you're interested contact me at riffkind@yahoo.com

thanks.


 

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 Adequacy.org. The Adequacy.org name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of Adequacy.org. No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by Adequacy.org and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to legal@adequacy.org.