posted on October 27, 2001 06:41:08 PM new
I don't understand the fearful attitude of postal workers who will report to work in a building they are afraid is contaiminated.
When I worked in a machine shop about 8 years ago the boss decided he was going to cut a bunch of asbestos blocks on the milling machine with a fly cutter and just use an air hose to blow the scrap all over the shop.
This was in order to save a couple hundred dollars to repair one of the machines in the shop.
He knew in his head that it was illegal and unacceptable to do but he had this attitude that he knew more than "those eggheads" that set stupid rules for things that "might kill you in 20 years" Of course he was 60 but some of the people he was exposing were in their 20's and had to worry a lot more than him about what would happen in 20 years.
Of about 25 people in the shop I was the only one who quit and walked out the door rather than stand and be contaiminated with asbestos dust. When I asked one of the fellows later why he didn't walk out he looked at me like I was a loon and said "I work there I have to do what they say."
Sheep - Silly bleeting mindless sheep. If the postal workers don't have the brains to walk out the door when the place is contaiminated it sharply reduces my sympathy for their cause. Nobody is forcing them in at gunpoint which is what it would take to get me in the door.
posted on October 27, 2001 06:56:47 PM new
An excerpt from George Orwell's Notes on Nationalism, toward the first, when he points out the distinction between patriotism and nationalism. Many others have done so, but Orwell does it succinctly and clearly in this paragraph.
By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." But secondly -- and this is much more important -- I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By "patriotism" I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.
posted on October 27, 2001 06:57:31 PM new
Limit our freedoms...
I rather think it's our enimies and not our politicians that intend to do that.
You must be talking about the laws that came into effect yesterday.
It's not the same world as it was on 9-10. Oh sure, evil things have happened all throughout recorded history, but the USA is being attacked internally like never before, by an enemy that is hard to locate, whether inside our borders or elsewhere.
And I'm thankful that our government is showing some backbone. I want my little daughter to have a nice place to live and grow up, like her parents did.
spelling
[ edited by loosecannon on Oct 27, 2001 07:01 PM ]
[ edited by loosecannon on Oct 27, 2001 07:04 PM ]
posted on October 27, 2001 07:15:03 PM new
The policy in this country has always been that people who do not oppose the government will be left alone. There has never been the demand that everyone must actively support the government in everyway. That is the road to Fascism where membership in the political party is required and public oaths of loyalty are demanded.(And become meaningless)
An example of how this effects law is that the Supreme Court ruled that it is not a citizens obligation to pay the highest tax rate that could be assigned if there were reasonable deductions and credits that could reduce the tax burden. The IRS had tried to say that patriotism demanded the highest rate that could be found should be applied. Do you see the kind of burdens that sort of reasoning puts on people?
The sort of "support" that you demand of people who define themselves as patriots and put themselves in a special relationship with the government such as holding public office or volunteering to be in the military or work with matters of national security such as in the defense industry is very different from what should be asked of people who are citizens but seek no special relationship with the political system. To demand that extra loyalty simply does not work. It is freely given or it can not be successfuly extracted by a dictitorial form of government that demands it with all the abuses that that requires. It has been demanded many times and it never works. It is as pointless to demand it of people as it is to demand someone's love. It will be freely given or false and valueless.
posted on October 27, 2001 07:15:46 PM new
Do you use your local library's computers or a cybercafe to surf the Internet? If a suspected terrorist used the computer before you, the FBI can use "sneak and peek" warrants to collect your surfing habits and look at your e-mails.
Do you rent rooms? If that quiet upstairs boarder turns out to be a suspected terrorist, you could be charged with the new crime of "harboring" a terrorist.
Do you make a lot of large cash deposits in the bank? The CIA and other intelligence agencies will be alerted to find out if you are involved in money laundering.
Those are just a few of the sweeping changes that will affect Americans under the anti-terrorism bill. It vastly expands the powers of the FBI and CIA to monitor Internet surfing, intercept e-mails and look at bank transactions and other personal records of Americans just on mere suspicion that someone is involved in terrorist activities.
I want my little daughter to have a nice place to live and grow up, like her parents did.
I'm sure everybody does, but there's a difference between "freedom" and "safety". I imagine the people in Nazi Germany were relatively safe, as long as they went along with whatever their leaders told them.
And no, I'm not saying our leaders are their equals.
posted on October 27, 2001 07:17:25 PM new
"Limit our freedoms..."
"I rather think it's our enimies and not our politicians that intend to do that."
What about the people who feel they have the right to have prayer in schools? What about the women who feel it is their right to choose what happens to their own bodies? What about the people who want the right to refuse certain medical treatments for religious reasons? What about the people durring WWII who felt it was their right to refuse military service (many ended up in prison). There are a lot more examples.
Your enimies probably aren't interested in these things but Politicians are...
Politicians will attempt to limit your freedoms based on whatever their political agenda is at the time.
[ edited by outoftheblue on Oct 27, 2001 08:33 PM ]
posted on October 27, 2001 07:56:00 PM newto be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight: and never stop fighting.
e.e. cummings
needspace
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
[ edited by snowyegret on Oct 27, 2001 07:57 PM ]
posted on October 27, 2001 08:01:09 PM new
Dang, Snowy, now you've gone and done it...
My favorite e.e. cummings poem:
nobody loses all the time
nobody loses all the time
i had an uncle named
Sol who was a born failure and
nearly everybody said he should have gone
into vaudeville perhaps because my Uncle Sol could
sing McCann He Was A Diver on Xmas Eve like Hell Itself which
may or may not account for the fact that my Uncle
Sol indulged in that possibly most inexcusable
of all to use a highfalootin phrase
luxuries that is or to
wit farming and be
it needlessly
added
my Uncle Sol's farm
failed because the chickens
ate the vegetables so
my Uncle Sol had a
chicken farm till the
skunks ate the chickens when
my Uncle Sol
had a skunk farm but
the skunks caught cold and
died and so
my Uncle Sol imitated the
skunks in a subtle manner
or by drowning himself in the watertank
but somebody who'd given my Uncle Sol a Victor
Victrola and records while he lived presented to
him upon the auspicious occasion of his decease a
scruptious not to mention splendiferous funeral with
tall boys in black gloves and flowers and everything and
i remember we all cried like the Missouri
when my Uncle Sol's coffin lurched because
somebody pressed a button
(and down went
my Uncle
Sol
posted on October 27, 2001 09:19:56 PM new
loosecannon
Do you support this country and it's war effort? Or are you against it for some reason?
I wonder where you are going with those questions. Would it make a person a lesser human being if they didn't support this countries war effort?
I'm in essence a pacifist [I believe it is wrong to kill another human being] and could not, in good concience, support any war. I know this is not a popular belief system right now but I don't care. I don't base my beliefs or values on what is popular.. Neither will I close my eyes/mind and blindly follow any political leader, regardless of the party he or she represents.
posted on October 28, 2001 05:12:22 AM new
Plsmith, I had to go last night. My DH got inspired by the e.e. cummings, and I was treated to an impromptu poetry reading.
My favorite e.e.
Humanity i love you
because you would rather black the boots of
success than enquire whose soul dangles from his
watch-chain which would be embarrassing for both
parties and because you
unflinchingly applaud all
songs containing the words country home and
mother when sung at the old howard
Humanity i love you because
when you're hard up you pawn your
intelligence to buy a drink and when
you're flush pride keeps
you from the pawn shop and
because you are continually committing
nuisances but more
especially in your own house
Humanity i love you because you
are perpetually putting the secret of
life in your pants and forgetting
it's there and sitting down
on it
and because you are
forever making poems in the lap
of death Humanity
i hate you
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on October 28, 2001 06:00:39 AM new
gravid,
I just want to make one little (big) point. Every vote counts, this was proven in our last election.
To all others,
The diversity of opinions on this discussion board prove that it is still our rights as individuals and Americans to openly and freely express our views, whether they are with the majority or the minority. And I for one support our troops efforts to keep us a free country with the values that were established by our ancestors of all ethnic types. Albeit that some politicans do things for political agendas only, they're some that truly believe in doing what is right for the people that elected them. In summary, all I'm saying is I'm glad we all feel free to express ourselves here....and not feel oppressed to reserve our opinions. My prayers are for our those lives lost, our country, the countries that have decided to fight terrorism along side of us, and those countries that oppose us so that they may understand.
*ducking, and going back to lurking*
posted on October 28, 2001 06:50:58 AM newI wonder where you are going with those questions. Would it make a person a lesser human being if they didn't support this countries war effort?
No, of course not. And why try to put me on the spot, as mrpotatoheadd did? I don't care if not one person here agrees with me and my thoughts.
Being a pacifist is a good and moral stance. Of course it's horrible to kill someone. It's also horrible to fly commercial aircraft with passengers and laden with fuel into structures with thousands more people inside of them. Then there's flying another into our military headquarters, the other in Pennsylvania, and anthrax.
Would you still feel that way if these horrific events (or other events that may follow) closely affected your town or city, your friends and loved ones, your home?
Would you prefer that instead of going to war, that we tried to work it out with them, maybe tried to fight it with some economic sanctions so nobody further gets hurt?
These people want the USA dead. They want Americans dead.
Do we have a choice in whether or not we go to war if we want to survive?
posted on October 28, 2001 07:34:54 AM new
And this is my last post on this thread (I recognize the futility of further posts).
I have two young relatives in the Army, and one is in the Special Forces. Another young friend of the family is in the Air Force. Any one of them could at any moment get orders to go overseas.
They would be going to protect me and you. No way are they going to get a proverbial slap in the face from me--by not supporting them or their government.
posted on October 28, 2001 07:47:43 AM new
Excellent thread! Thoughtful and insightful comments.
I too am a Pacifist BUT... my son has a Pitbull who is gentle and loving. I love her dearly but if I came home to find her foaming at the mouth, I would NOT try to reason or negotiate with her. I'd shoot her.
posted on October 28, 2001 08:36:54 AM new
slavien -
"These people want the USA dead. They want Americans dead". what people? who? do YOU know? they now say that anthrax is from american radicals and this thread talks about the anthrax but you talk about war.
I believe you are aware that bin Laden, his followers, the Teliban and many other radical muslims have been quoted as saying (and seen on TV) they want all infidels, American's and those living in Israel killed. They have pledged to kill the 'westerners' many times. Have you truly not heard/read this anywhere?
O/T - Yes, the USPO workers must be protected in every humanly way possible. If our mail gets held up for a while as the POs are being decontamiated, we'll live through it. They won't if we don't.
On the anthrax issue, they said they are 'leaning' towards that conclusion, but they still also share they aren't sure. It could be radicals who support the Teliban and their cause. There have been no definite conclusions reached on the anthrax matters.
posted on October 28, 2001 08:38:36 AM newPoliticians will attempt to limit your freedoms based on whatever their political agenda is at the time.
I have to ask, why in God's name would the FBI want to listen in on my phone conversations with Aunt Mabel? If they think listening to me chat with Mabel might stop terrorism, they are welcome to listen til the cows come home. Heck, I'd even be willing to share my recipe for rhubarb pie.
posted on October 28, 2001 08:44:05 AM new
outoftheblue - I'm in essence a pacifist [I believe it is wrong to kill another human being] and could not, in good concience, support any war.
Question please. I'm not sure of your age, but if you fall in the age limits for the draft, and should one be re-activated again would you serve your country in another way that wouldn't involve being armed and fighting? Like would you still be willing to serve your country in the armed forces in another capacity? Or would you move to another country?
posted on October 28, 2001 08:58:32 AM new
I support the anti-terrorism bill.
I also have no worry or concerns about any of the issues MrPotatoHeadd has brought up in her/his thread. Reason? I wouldn't be involved in any anti American practices. While I might be investigated, they wouldn't pin anything on me because I'd be innocent. These bills are necessary to give our government the control they need to fight the terrorists, not innocent people. AND they now have a time limit on them. They will expire on a certain date. Or should they still be necessary, they will be voted on again. I don't see it as people giving up their rights, I see it as insuring our government has more ability to find the *******'s that have declared war on America by their actions.
You can't expect to tie the governments hands behind their backs, and then say, "Do something to protect us from further attacks."
posted on October 28, 2001 09:27:23 AM new
I just read the thread. I'm trying to figure out it became a patriotism thread.
It seem that if one feels the government is rather obtuse regarding the distribution of anthrax letters, that ipso facto one is not only impeding the war against terrorism, but also not a true patriot.
Hogwash. One can wholeheartedly support the war and still not blindly accept everything the government says & does. I think Samuel Adams said it best:
"The true patriot therefore, will enquire into the causes of the fears and jealousies of his countrymen; and if he finds they are not groundless, he will be far from endeavoring to allay or stifle them: On the contrary, constrain'd by the Amor Patrice, and from public views, he will by all proper means in his power foment and cherish them: He will, as far as he is able, keep the attention of his fellow citizens awake to their grievances; and not suffer them to be at rest, till the causes of their just complaints are removed.--At such a time Philanthrop's Patriot [a King's man] may be "very cautious of charging the want of ability or integrity to those with whom any of the powers of government are entrusted": But the true patriot, will constantly be jealous of those very men: Knowing that power, especially in times of corruption, makes men wanton; that it intoxicates the mind; and unless those with whom it is entrusted, are carefully watched, such is the weakness or the perverseness of human nature, they will be apt to domineer over the people, instead of governing them, according to the known laws of the state, to which alone they have submitted. If he finds, upon the best enquiry, the want of ability or integrity; that is, an ignorance of, or a disposition to depart from, the constitution, which is the measure and rule of government & submission, he will point them out, and loudly proclaim them: He will stir up the people, incessantly to complain of such men, till they are either reform'd, or remov'd from that sacred trust, which it is dangerous for them any longer to hold."
Samuel Adams (Essay in Boston Gazette, 1771)
But perhaps in the minds of some we have reached the point that Benjamin Franklin feared would come: "[I] . . · believe farther that this [new government under the Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other."
posted on October 28, 2001 09:49:39 AM newagain would you serve your country in another way that wouldn't involve being armed and fighting? Like would you still be willing to serve your country in the armed forces in another capacity
Used to be they made CO's medics. When given the choice most medics carried weapons.
posted on October 28, 2001 10:02:50 AM new
Microbes - Are you sure they all had to carry guns? It was my understanding during the Vietnam war/conflict that COs were given some desk jobs too. Never were sent to nam because they were COs. Am I mis-informed on this issue?
posted on October 28, 2001 10:30:57 AM new
Medics didn't HAVE to carry weapons. Many did. I think what they made them do / not do depended on what they officialy "objected to" (and normally they would have to point to some "teaching", not being willing to kill is not the same as not being willing to put your self in danger).
posted on October 28, 2001 10:44:38 AM new
microbes - sorry for my not being clear. I understood that point....just worded my reply wrong.
I looked it up under US Military Draft
SERVICE AS A CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
Two types of service are available to conscientious objectors, and the type assigned is determined by the individual's specific beliefs. The person who is opposed to any form of military service will be assigned to Alternative Service - described below. The person whose beliefs allow him to serve in the military but in a noncombatant capacity will serve in the Armed Forces but will not be assigned training or duties that include using weapons.
ALTERNATIVE SERVICE
Conscientious Objectors opposed to serving in the military will be placed in the Selective Service Alternative Service Program. This program attempts to match COs with local employers. Many types of jobs are available, however the job must be deemed to make a meaningful contribution to the maintenance of the national health, safety, and interest. Examples of Alternative Service are jobs in:
conservation
caring for the very young or very old
education
health care
Length of service in the program will equal the amount of time a man would have served in the military, usually 24 months.
posted on October 28, 2001 11:01:28 AM new
Hey, great e e cummings poems, pat and snowy.
This is one of my favorites, both because of some of the poignant word play and as a reminder of where I do not want to be. I also see a relationship to the topic.
pity this busy monster,manunkind,
not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim(death and life safely beyond)
plays with the bigness of his littleness
--electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange;lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born--pity poor flesh
and trees,poor stars and stones,but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical
ultraomnipotence. We doctors know
a hopeless case if--listen:there's a hell
of a good universe next door;let's go
posted on October 28, 2001 11:06:52 AM new
Linda_K
No, I don't fall into that age category. Not even close
However, even if I did I would not serve in the "military" in any capacity. This is a personal decision based on my conscience. I wouldn't expect you to understand it and it would take too long to explain.
posted on October 28, 2001 11:32:11 AM new
outoftheblue - You don't owe me any explanation. It's your choice, your beliefs etc. I just personally wanted to know where you stood on your duty to your country (under a draft situation). I got from your post you wouldn't volunteer.
Why I asked if you'd leave your country if you were drafted was because unless you received some sort of deferement, you would have been required, by law, to serve your country or face a jail sentence. (Or choose one of the COs options.) I believe these laws have been allowed to expire (have been suspended for now)....possibably until another draft is re-enacted.
posted on October 28, 2001 12:30:07 PM new
Loosecannon made a good point.
Would you still feel that way if these horrific events (or other events that may follow) closely affected your town or city, your friends and loved ones, your home?
No I wouldn't. I do believe in justice and the people involved should be punnished. However, there is no justice in war. Any act of retaliation that involves death or suffering for the innocent has nothing to do with justice. It is an act of injustice. There is no such thing as acceptable losses!
