Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?

Expand Messages
  • Jeff Olson
    I might not send my kids to school to avoid spending money on oil products. ;) In fact, that was a major reason for homeschooling our kids when we lived out
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      I might not send my kids to school to avoid spending money on oil products. ;)  In fact, that was a major reason for homeschooling our kids when we lived out in Bum Fuck Egypt (in the northern ca countryside).

      JO

      On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
       

      Yes, I try to avoid "it's all about oil" arguments.

      Regards,

      Dan
      Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:24 PM

      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?

       
      True.  I wasn't speaking to the motivation of parents.  

      JO

      On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
       
      I don't mean everyone got together and said, "What do we need schools for? Oh, indoctrination!" (To be sure, that was the initial reason, it seems to me, for most public schooling. In the US, in particular, it seemed to be for assimilating those Catholics into Protestant culture. At least, reading some of the history gave me that impression.) Rather, it seems like parents mainly tend to use schools as babysitters and to cover their gaps as mediocre parents.

      Regards,

      Dan
      Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:19 AM
      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?

       
      Heh.  There's this cartoon of a school with a sign out front that reads: Kids Against Drugs or something like that - while in the background a truck is dumping Ritalin into the classrooms.  Got a smile from me. ;)

      Babbysitting?  Doesn't seem like much of a purpose versus "go to sleep, citizens"-style indoctrination - that is, the making of compliant, unquestioning citizens.

      Jeff O.

      On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote: 
      On your last point, isn't that what some of the ADD and ADHD meds do? And isn't this often with the parents' consent? (This brings up a wider point: what are schools for? I don't mean anyone thinks openly in these terms, but it seems like the basic function is babysitting -- indoctrination or learning come in second or third place for that. And the meds merely help make the children more tolerable. It almost seems to me like people have kids who don't want to do all the things required to raising them. It's like they want the joy without the responsibilities or hassles, which is quite natural, but then these are saddled on everyone else, no?)

      Regards,

      Dan


    • Joshua Katz
      Perhaps the purpose of schools is to facilitate the existence of a nation that needs babysitting?
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Perhaps the purpose of schools is to facilitate the existence of a nation that needs babysitting?

        On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
         

        Heh.  There's this cartoon of a school with a sign out front that reads: Kids Against Drugs or something like that - while in the background a truck is dumping Ritalin into the classrooms.  Got a smile from me. ;)


        Babbysitting?  Doesn't seem like much of a purpose versus "go to sleep, citizens"-style indoctrination - that is, the making of compliant, unquestioning citizens.

        Jeff O.


        On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
         

        On your last point, isn't that what some of the ADD and ADHD meds do? And isn't this often with the parents' consent? (This brings up a wider point: what are schools for? I don't mean anyone thinks openly in these terms, but it seems like the basic function is babysitting -- indoctrination or learning come in second or third place for that. And the meds merely help make the children more tolerable. It almost seems to me like people have kids who don't want to do all the things required to raising them. It's like they want the joy without the responsibilities or hassles, which is quite natural, but then these are saddled on everyone else, no?)

        Regards,

        Dan

        From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
        To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:29 PM
        Subject: Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY? (Was: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: 9-11)

         
        I would've used public schools as an example of measuring by two different standards.  By the conventional standard, government schools suck because, at least here, they fail at real education - critical thinking, basic reading comprehension, and so forth.  But of course by the elite/gov standards, that's a rip-roaring success!

        The fact that *some* kids leave school disliking corporations and cops could be seen as an acceptable failure because, after all, no system is perfect, and most of the kids are brainwashed. ;)  I don't know what the exact proportions of non-brainwashed to brainwashed kids are, of course (though I'd lean toward brainwashed), but your idea does point to how the plans of conspiring elites could, and I certain often do, fail: life is unpredictable, and no one can control the minds of others reliably enough to change that.

        At least for the time being.  That could change with advances in technology.  How about chips that regulate mood and thoughts to a degree?  How far-fetched is that, really?

        JO



      • James
        That s why I changed Wilkinson -Ron Paul to 9-11, since that is what we were talking about.
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          That's why I changed "Wilkinson -Ron Paul" to 9-11, since that is what we were talking about.




          --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
          >
          > Seriously, you and I have a very different theoretical take on the
          > stupidity of government.
          >
          > This could be an interesting discussion, and I don't want to give it short
          > shift by making a couple of simple claims, so please consider this post to
          > be a down-payment on a more involved analysis. Also, this is rather
          > off-the-cuff, so I reserve the right to amend any and all assertions. ;)
          >
          > First, the kinds of "stupidity" that government does is neither an
          > all-pervasive or simple subject. Governments can and do perform extremely
          > complex tasks, even when they are wildly inefficient or corrupt as hell
          > (which is pretty much always the case). The Soviets, for example (as I
          > mentioned before), couldn't build decent washing machines or buildings or
          > efficient markets, but their government programs did build some successful
          > space ships as well as the atom bomb. Ditto for the USG, except more so.
          >
          > The essence of government stupidity, I suggest, is not the building of or
          > performance of something, but rather the economic management of things -
          > particularly the financing aspect of things. I think what you're doing
          > here basically is conflating the inherent inability of government to run
          > businesslike operations - it always looks stupid doing that because it
          > lacks fundamental free market pricing and demand mechanisms - with the
          > actual production of things.
          >
          > Anyway, as I said, that's a preliminary down-payment on the subject. And
          > I'm changing the thread-name to suit this subject. Jesus, has anyone seen
          > more discussions proliferate - inappropriately - under one subject line
          > than the "Wilkinson/Ron Paul" thread title?
          >
          > So I'm changing this to "Government Stupidity?"
          >
          > Jeff O.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Moronic? Imbecilic? Cretinous?
          > >
          > > JO ;)
          > >
          > >
          > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...> wrote:
          > >
          > >> **
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> And idiotic is a synonym for...
          > >>
          > >>
          > >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
          > >>
          > >>> **
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>> Even if that is true, and there were few intercepts well into American
          > >>> soil, that doesn't imply any lack of capability to do so. If you read the
          > >>> FAA regulations, they don't say, "Ah, all our policies of intercepting
          > >>> planes only applies to those on the outskirts of US territory." And for
          > >>> good reason, because that would be idiotic beyond belief.
          > >>>
          > >>> JO
          > >>>
          > >>>
          > >>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
          > >>>
          > >>>> **
          > >>>>
          > >>>>
          > >>>> My guess is as Nathan says below the vast majority of 'intercepts' were
          > >>>> at or near US borders, which obviously did not apply on 9-11.
          > >>>>
          > >>>>
          > >>>> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@>
          > >>>> wrote:
          > >>>> >
          > >>>> > Being "prepared to" doesn't mean they wouldn't want to avoid shooting
          > >>>> a
          > >>>> > plane down until it's absolutely necessary. It's easily
          > >>>> understandable why
          > >>>> > that would prove unnecessary in almost all cases.
          > >>>> >
          > >>>> > Listening to military officials prior to 9/11 makes it clear that as a
          > >>>> > matter of policy fighter jets (or in some cases, helicopters) are
          > >>>> prepared
          > >>>> > to scramble quickly and be capable of a shoot-down. It seems entirely
          > >>>> > unreasonable if that weren't the case - that is, if the USG lacked a
          > >>>> > fast-response interdictive capability.
          > >>>> >
          > >>>> > Claims that US fighter jets/helicopters can't scramble to interdict
          > >>>> > unauthorized craft in a timely manner seem entirely non-credible to
          > >>>> me.
          > >>>> >
          > >>>> > What's not clear is exactly how many intercepts have occurred and
          > >>>> when. At
          > >>>> > least I can't find it online.
          > >>>> >
          > >>>> > JO
          > >>>> >
          > >>>> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM, James <jeo1@> wrote:
          > >>>> >
          > >>>> > > **
          > >>>>
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> > > For one thing Jeff there has never been a shoot down of a civilian
          > >>>> > > airplane (that we know of).
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> > > So it isn't like this was an everyday occurrence.
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> > > The idea that the military should be ready at a moments notice to
          > >>>> shoot
          > >>>> > > down a civilian commercial airplane because it doesn't respond to
          > >>>> radio
          > >>>> > > calls, it shut off the transponder or even is a confirmed hijack is
          > >>>> not
          > >>>> > > realistic, nor would I want the military doing that as a matter of
          > >>>> > > "routine" procedure.
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Byrd" <nfactor13@>
          > >>>> > > wrote:
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > > > I'm still reading through this, but most of what I'm getting so
          > >>>> far is a
          > >>>> > > focus on wording primarily and looking for the tiniest
          > >>>> inconsistencies in
          > >>>> > > what one person said over here compared to what another person said
          > >>>> over
          > >>>> > > there. So far, it's very light on actual documentation of incidents
          > >>>> and
          > >>>> > > just taking what various officials have put out as estimates
          > >>>> without giving
          > >>>> > > me any way of answering extremely basic and obvious questions that
          > >>>> come up
          > >>>> > > as I'm reading.
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > > > For example, these paragraphs:
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > > > "Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took
          > >>>> off to
          > >>>> > > intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times. . . . Of
          > >>>> these
          > >>>> > > incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged
          > >>>> . . .
          > >>>> > > less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity. The
          > >>>> > > remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting
          > >>>> unidentified
          > >>>> > > aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.[10]
          > >>>> > > > "In the period from 1989 through 1992, according to this account,
          > >>>> NORAD
          > >>>> > > made an average of 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which
          > >>>> "involved
          > >>>> > > visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in
          > >>>> > > distress," not intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs.
          > >>>> Besides
          > >>>> > > the fact that 1992 was part of "the decade before 9/11," it is
          > >>>> doubtful
          > >>>> > > that the pattern of interceptions would have changed radically
          > >>>> after that.
          > >>>> > > > "With regard to NEADS in particular, Colonel John K. Scott, the
          > >>>> > > commander from March 1996 to June 1998, said: "We probably
          > >>>> 'scramble'
          > >>>> > > fighters once a week. When unknowns come up you have to make the
          > >>>> decision
          > >>>> > > to launch or not."[11]
          > >>>> > > > "PM has clearly not, therefore, debunked the idea that NORAD
          > >>>> routinely
          > >>>> > > intercepted planes over the continental United States. The question
          > >>>> > > remains, therefore, why this routine activity did not occur on
          > >>>> 9/11."
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > > > Ok, so let's start with the paragraph ending in citation [10]. I
          > >>>> went to
          > >>>> > > the actual source used to see context, and a couple things stand
          > >>>> out.
          > >>>> > > First, the deployment of the bases from which these aircraft
          > >>>> scramble is
          > >>>> > > primarily on the border, emphasizing external threats. (See
          > >>>> appendix I.)
          > >>>> > > Second, there's no indication that these scrambles were used for
          > >>>> domestic
          > >>>> > > commercial large jets. There's a lack of specifics, but nothing in
          > >>>> context
          > >>>> > > indicates that it was routine for any of these fighter jets to
          > >>>> scramble to
          > >>>> > > a regular domestic passenger plane. Third, the report clearly
          > >>>> indicates
          > >>>> > > that the military is routinely terrible at figuring out the
          > >>>> appropriate
          > >>>> > > deployment of resources to accomplish the missions it should be
          > >>>> doing and
          > >>>> > > tends to wastefully deploy resources for missions they're either
          > >>>> not good
          > >>>> > > at or aren't really needed to do at all. This shouldn't come as any
          > >>>> > > surprise to most of us here, but I just wanted to point out that the
          > >>>> > > military response was not set up as effectively as it could have
          > >>>> been for
          > >>>> > > many years prior to 9/11.
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > > > Regarding the [11] link, it's one statement without any context,
          > >>>> so I
          > >>>> > > went and looked up some other info on the person quoted. Here's one
          > >>>> report
          > >>>> > > where he is talked about:
          > >>>> > > http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
          > >>>> > > > And it seems apparent to me that his comment, when put into
          > >>>> context,
          > >>>> > > does not support the way it's being used here. I'd like to see the
          > >>>> book
          > >>>> > > itself, but my guess is that his comment is about airborne
          > >>>> objects/craft
          > >>>> > > that are outside the borders of the U.S. and that he does not
          > >>>> recount
          > >>>> > > numerous occasions where domestic passenger planes were
          > >>>> intercepted. I
          > >>>> > > could be wrong on that, but I don't see any support for the way
          > >>>> that this
          > >>>> > > particular blog/article is using his quote. Can you confirm the
          > >>>> context of
          > >>>> > > the book his statement is taken from?
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > > > Nathan
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@>
          > >>>> wrote:
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > Nathan, I suggest going to the Pilots for Truth website. One
          > >>>> post I've
          > >>>> > > > > read recently does go into some fair detail. But - finding exact
          > >>>> > > response
          > >>>> > > > > times and detailed logs for USAF or National Guard intercepts?
          > >>>> I don't
          > >>>> > > see
          > >>>> > > > > it anywhere. The best I've seen is USAF spokespeople making
          > >>>> various
          > >>>> > > claims
          > >>>> > > > > - which does count as reasonably firm evidence, I think, that
          > >>>> > > intercepts
          > >>>> > > > > took place.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > I'll save you some trouble and paste something from David Ray
          > >>>> Griffin's
          > >>>> > > > > "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" - (which I own; I also own Popular
          > >>>> > > Mechanic's
          > >>>> > > > > Debunking book), copied from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Website
          > >>>> > > > > (
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> file:///C:/911/Payne%20Stewart%20Intercept...%20Timelines%20-%20Pilots%20For%209%2011%20Truth%20Forum.htm
          > >>>> > > ):
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > Military Intercepts
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > In its final effort to debunk the idea that on 9/11 a
          > >>>> stand-down order
          > >>>> > > had
          > >>>> > > > > been issued (which was not rescinded until shortly before the
          > >>>> downing
          > >>>> > > of
          > >>>> > > > > Flight 93), PM disputes the 9/11 truth movement's claim that
          > >>>> NORAD's
          > >>>> > > > > fighter jets routinely intercepted planes and usually did so in
          > >>>> a
          > >>>> > > matter of
          > >>>> > > > > minutes. PM's contrary "fact" is that, "In the decade before
          > >>>> 9/11,
          > >>>> > > NORAD
          > >>>> > > > > intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer
          > >>>> Payne
          > >>>> > > > > Stewart's Learjet in October 1999."[1]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > No "Routine" Interceptions: One impediment to their claim was a
          > >>>> Boston
          > >>>> > > > > Globe article, quoted in The New Pearl Harbor, in which the
          > >>>> author,
          > >>>> > > Glen
          > >>>> > > > > Johnson, reported that NORAD spokesman Mike Snyder, speaking a
          > >>>> few days
          > >>>> > > > > after 9/11, said that NORAD's fighters, in Johnson's paraphrase,
          > >>>> > > "routinely
          > >>>> > > > > intercept aircraft."[2] To rebut this claim, our authors do not
          > >>>> cite
          > >>>> > > any
          > >>>> > > > > documentary evidence. They simply say: "When contacted by
          > >>>> Popular
          > >>>> > > > > Mechanics, spokesmen for NORAD and the FAA clarified their
          > >>>> remarks by
          > >>>> > > > > noting that scrambles were routine, but intercepts were
          > >>>> > > not---especially
          > >>>> > > > > over the continental United States."[3] But these alleged
          > >>>> "spokesmen"
          > >>>> > > > > remain anonymous, a fact suggesting that PM could not find
          > >>>> anyone in
          > >>>> > > either
          > >>>> > > > > NORAD or the FAA willing to have his or her name associated
          > >>>> with this
          > >>>> > > > > claim. PM has not really, therefore, undermined the statement
          > >>>> made by
          > >>>> > > NORAD
          > >>>> > > > > spokesman Mike Snyder, a few days after 9/11, that NORAD makes
          > >>>> > > > > interceptions routinely.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > The idea that interceptions occur regularly has not, of course,
          > >>>> been
          > >>>> > > based
          > >>>> > > > > solely or even primarily on Snyder's statement. It has also
          > >>>> been based
          > >>>> > > on
          > >>>> > > > > reports that fighters have been scrambled about a hundred times
          > >>>> a
          > >>>> > > year. A
          > >>>> > > > > 2001 story in the Calgary Herald reported that NORAD had
          > >>>> scrambled
          > >>>> > > fighters
          > >>>> > > > > 129 times in 2000; an Associated Press story in 2002 referred to
          > >>>> > > NORAD's
          > >>>> > > > > "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001."[4] By
          > >>>> extrapolation,
          > >>>> > > one
          > >>>> > > > > can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters about a thousand
          > >>>> times in
          > >>>> > > the
          > >>>> > > > > decade prior to 9/11. This figure makes it very hard for Popular
          > >>>> > > Mechanics,
          > >>>> > > > > by claiming that most scrambles do not result in interceptions
          > >>>> (a claim
          > >>>> > > > > made by Benjamin Chertoff during a radio show debate with me
          > >>>> when he
          > >>>> > > was
          > >>>> > > > > still a PM spokesperson), to claim that only one civilian plane
          > >>>> had
          > >>>> > > been
          > >>>> > > > > intercepted in North America during the decade before 9/11. As I
          > >>>> > > argued in
          > >>>> > > > > print, this claim could be true "only if in all of these cases,
          > >>>> except
          > >>>> > > for
          > >>>> > > > > the Payne incident, the fighters were called back to base
          > >>>> before they
          > >>>> > > > > actually intercepted the aircraft in question. . . , a most
          > >>>> unlikely
          > >>>> > > > > possibility."[5]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > PM's solution to this problem is to argue not only that
          > >>>> interceptions
          > >>>> > > are
          > >>>> > > > > rare but also that scrambles are---at least scrambles within the
          > >>>> > > > > continental United States. But this solution faced a problem:
          > >>>> Major
          > >>>> > > Douglas
          > >>>> > > > > Martin, who on other issues has been quoted in support of PM's
          > >>>> > > position,
          > >>>> > > > > was the person who had been quoted in the Associated Press
          > >>>> story,
          > >>>> > > mentioned
          > >>>> > > > > above, about NORAD's "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June
          > >>>> 2001."
          > >>>> > > > > Martin himself had implied, in other words, that NORAD had been
          > >>>> > > scrambling
          > >>>> > > > > jets about 100 times a year. PM tries to neutralize this
          > >>>> statement by
          > >>>> > > > > saying:
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > However, the Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service produced a more
          > >>>> > > complete
          > >>>> > > > > account, which included an important qualification. Here's how
          > >>>> the
          > >>>> > > Knight
          > >>>> > > > > Ridder story appeared in the September 28, 2002, edition of the
          > >>>> > > Colorado
          > >>>> > > > > Springs Gazette: "From June 2000 to September 2001 [sic][6],
          > >>>> NORAD
          > >>>> > > > > scrambled fighters 67 times but not over the continental United
          > >>>> > > States. . .
          > >>>> > > > > . Before September 11, the only time officials recall
          > >>>> scrambling jets
          > >>>> > > over
          > >>>> > > > > the United States was when golfer Payne Stewart's plane veered
          > >>>> off
          > >>>> > > course
          > >>>> > > > > and crashed in South Dakota in 1999."
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > Except for that lone, tragic anomaly, all NORAD interceptions
          > >>>> from the
          > >>>> > > end
          > >>>> > > > > of the Cold war in 1989 until 9/11 took place in offshore Air
          > >>>> Defense
          > >>>> > > > > Identification Zones (ADIZ). . . . The planes intercepted in
          > >>>> these
          > >>>> > > zones
          > >>>> > > > > were primarily being used for drug smuggling.[7]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > There are several problems with this response. Two of them
          > >>>> involve
          > >>>> > > > > inconsistencies in PM's argument. For one thing, PM is supposed
          > >>>> to be
          > >>>> > > > > defending its claim that in the decade prior to 9/11 there had
          > >>>> been
          > >>>> > > only
          > >>>> > > > > one interception "over North America," but the qualification in
          > >>>> this
          > >>>> > > > > Knight-Ridder story speaks only of "the continental United
          > >>>> States."
          > >>>> > > The PM
          > >>>> > > > > authors have thereby ignored Canada, that other North American
          > >>>> country
          > >>>> > > that
          > >>>> > > > > is protected by NORAD, and Alaska. A second inconsistency is
          > >>>> that,
          > >>>> > > after
          > >>>> > > > > having emphasized the distinction between scrambles and
          > >>>> interceptions,
          > >>>> > > the
          > >>>> > > > > PM authors then conflate them. We can, however, set aside these
          > >>>> > > > > inconsistencies in order to focus on more serious problems.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > First, given the fact that the Knight-Ridder story not only
          > >>>> appeared
          > >>>> > > > > several months after the AP story but also appeared in a
          > >>>> newspaper in
          > >>>> > > > > Colorado Springs, near NORAD headquarters, it could be
          > >>>> disinformation
          > >>>> > > put
          > >>>> > > > > out to provide the basis for exactly the case that PM is now
          > >>>> > > making---that
          > >>>> > > > > NORAD's failure to intercept the airliners on 9/11 was not a
          > >>>> failure
          > >>>> > > to do
          > >>>> > > > > something that it had been doing routinely.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > Second, given this possibility, PM's description of the
          > >>>> Knight-Ridder
          > >>>> > > story
          > >>>> > > > > as a "more complete account" begs the question, because of the
          > >>>> > > possibility
          > >>>> > > > > that it is a distortion, rather than simply a more complete
          > >>>> account,
          > >>>> > > of the
          > >>>> > > > > truth. An indication that it does involve distortion, moreover,
          > >>>> is
          > >>>> > > provided
          > >>>> > > > > by the fact that Martin, in illustrating the increased number of
          > >>>> > > scrambles
          > >>>> > > > > after 9/11, said: "In June [2002], Air Force jets scrambled
          > >>>> three
          > >>>> > > times to
          > >>>> > > > > intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted
          > >>>> > > airspace
          > >>>> > > > > around the White House and around Camp David." These clearly
          > >>>> were over
          > >>>> > > the
          > >>>> > > > > continental United States. If the Knight-Ridder qualification
          > >>>> were
          > >>>> > > true, we
          > >>>> > > > > would expect Martin to have said: "After 9/11, not only have
          > >>>> there been
          > >>>> > > > > more interceptions, but now some of them are within the
          > >>>> continental
          > >>>> > > United
          > >>>> > > > > States." But there is no indication in the AP story that he
          > >>>> made any
          > >>>> > > such
          > >>>> > > > > statement. Also, although PM interviewed Martin in 2004, it
          > >>>> gives no
          > >>>> > > sign
          > >>>> > > > > that he endorsed the Knight-Ridder qualification.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > A third problem with PM's defense is that, even if it were true
          > >>>> that
          > >>>> > > all
          > >>>> > > > > the interceptions had been offshore instead of over American or
          > >>>> > > Canadian
          > >>>> > > > > soil, that would do little to defend the military against the
          > >>>> charge
          > >>>> > > that
          > >>>> > > > > it had stood down on 9/11. The issue at hand is whether the
          > >>>> military
          > >>>> > > had
          > >>>> > > > > regularly intercepted planes. It matters not whether these
          > >>>> > > interceptions
          > >>>> > > > > were over the land or over the water.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > A fourth problem is the existence of reports that fighter jets
          > >>>> had
          > >>>> > > indeed
          > >>>> > > > > intercepted civilian planes quite regularly in the decades
          > >>>> prior to
          > >>>> > > 9/11. I
          > >>>> > > > > had quoted, for example, a 1998 document warning pilots that any
          > >>>> > > airplanes
          > >>>> > > > > persisting in unusual behavior "will likely find two [jet
          > >>>> fighters] on
          > >>>> > > > > their tail within 10 or so minutes."[8] Also, the above-cited
          > >>>> story in
          > >>>> > > the
          > >>>> > > > > Calgary Herald, which reported that NORAD had scrambled fighter
          > >>>> jets
          > >>>> > > 129
          > >>>> > > > > times in 2000, also said: "Fighter jets are scrambled to babysit
          > >>>> > > suspect
          > >>>> > > > > aircraft or `unknowns' three or four times a day. Before Sept.
          > >>>> 11, that
          > >>>> > > > > happened twice a week."[9] Twice a week would be about 100
          > >>>> times per
          > >>>> > > year,
          > >>>> > > > > and "babysitting" is not what jets would do with planes
          > >>>> suspected of
          > >>>> > > > > smuggling drugs into the country.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > A fifth problem for PM's claim---that in the decade before
          > >>>> 9/11, all of
          > >>>> > > > > NORAD's interceptions except one were offshore and primarily
          > >>>> involved
          > >>>> > > drug
          > >>>> > > > > smuggling---is a 1994 report from the General Accounting
          > >>>> Office, which
          > >>>> > > > > strongly contradicts this claim. It said:
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took
          > >>>> off to
          > >>>> > > > > intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times. . .
          > >>>> . Of
          > >>>> > > these
          > >>>> > > > > incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft
          > >>>> averaged .
          > >>>> > > . .
          > >>>> > > > > less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity.
          > >>>> The
          > >>>> > > > > remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting
          > >>>> unidentified
          > >>>> > > > > aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.[10]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > In the period from 1989 through 1992, according to this
          > >>>> account, NORAD
          > >>>> > > made
          > >>>> > > > > an average of 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which "involved
          > >>>> > > visually
          > >>>> > > > > inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in
          > >>>> distress,"
          > >>>> > > not
          > >>>> > > > > intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs. Besides the
          > >>>> fact that
          > >>>> > > > > 1992 was part of "the decade before 9/11," it is doubtful that
          > >>>> the
          > >>>> > > pattern
          > >>>> > > > > of interceptions would have changed radically after that.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > With regard to NEADS in particular, Colonel John K. Scott, the
          > >>>> > > commander
          > >>>> > > > > from March 1996 to June 1998, said: "We probably 'scramble'
          > >>>> fighters
          > >>>> > > once a
          > >>>> > > > > week. When unknowns come up you have to make the decision to
          > >>>> launch or
          > >>>> > > > > not."[11]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > PM has clearly not, therefore, debunked the idea that NORAD
          > >>>> routinely
          > >>>> > > > > intercepted planes over the continental United States. The
          > >>>> question
          > >>>> > > > > remains, therefore, why this routine activity did not occur on
          > >>>> 9/11.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > No Interceptions "Within Minutes": "Some conspiracy theorists,"
          > >>>> the PM
          > >>>> > > > > authors say, "mistakenly believe the Stewart case bolsters their
          > >>>> > > argument
          > >>>> > > > > that fighters can reach wayward passenger planes within
          > >>>> minutes."[12]
          > >>>> > > In
          > >>>> > > > > attempting to refute this belief, they argue that, because of a
          > >>>> > > crossing of
          > >>>> > > > > a time zone, Stewart's plane was not really intercepted within
          > >>>> 19
          > >>>> > > minutes,
          > >>>> > > > > as widely believed, but an hour and 19 minutes. Be that as it
          > >>>> may (I
          > >>>> > > have
          > >>>> > > > > elsewhere suggested that the documents are too confused to make
          > >>>> a firm
          > >>>> > > > > judgment[13]), the important issue is whether, prior to 9/11,
          > >>>> scrambled
          > >>>> > > > > fighters regularly intercepted aircraft within minutes.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > There is evidence that they did. Above, I quoted a 1998 document
          > >>>> > > stating
          > >>>> > > > > that fighters commonly intercept aircraft "within 10 or so
          > >>>> minutes."
          > >>>> > > Also,
          > >>>> > > > > in a 1999 story, a full-time alert pilot at Homestead Air
          > >>>> Reserve Base
          > >>>> > > > > (near Miami) was quoted as saying, "If needed, we could be
          > >>>> killing
          > >>>> > > things
          > >>>> > > > > in five minutes or less."[14]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > These reports suggest that unless there had been a stand-down
          > >>>> order on
          > >>>> > > > > 9/11, any hijacked airliners would have been intercepted within
          > >>>> 10
          > >>>> > > minutes
          > >>>> > > > > or so. This contention is supported by former Air Force Colonel
          > >>>> Robert
          > >>>> > > > > Bowman, who was an interceptor pilot before becoming head of
          > >>>> the "Star
          > >>>> > > > > Wars" program during the Ford and Carter administrations. He
          > >>>> has said:
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > If our government had merely done nothing---and I say that as
          > >>>> an old
          > >>>> > > > > interceptor pilot and I know the drill, I know what it takes, I
          > >>>> know
          > >>>> > > how
          > >>>> > > > > long it takes, I know what the procedures are . . . ---if our
          > >>>> > > government
          > >>>> > > > > had merely done nothing and allowed normal procedures to happen
          > >>>> on that
          > >>>> > > > > morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing and
          > >>>> thousands
          > >>>> > > of
          > >>>> > > > > Americans would still be alive.[15]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > No Armed Fighters on Alert: The PM authors argue at the end of
          > >>>> their
          > >>>> > > > > section on military intercepts---evidently intending this as
          > >>>> their
          > >>>> > > knockout
          > >>>> > > > > punch---that between the end of the Cold War and 9/11, the US
          > >>>> did not
          > >>>> > > even
          > >>>> > > > > keep armed fighters on alert. To support this astounding claim,
          > >>>> our
          > >>>> > > authors
          > >>>> > > > > again cite no documentary evidence. They do not even quote
          > >>>> anyone from
          > >>>> > > the
          > >>>> > > > > U.S. military. They rely entirely on a statement from former
          > >>>> Senator
          > >>>> > > Warren
          > >>>> > > > > Rudman (Republican from New Hampshire), who was quoted in Glen
          > >>>> > > Johnson's
          > >>>> > > > > 2001 Boston Globe article as saying:
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > We don't have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles
          > >>>> sitting on
          > >>>> > > > > runways in this country. We just don't do that anymore. . . .
          > >>>> [T]o
          > >>>> > > expect
          > >>>> > > > > American fighter aircraft to intercept commercial airliners . .
          > >>>> . is
          > >>>> > > > > totally unrealistic and makes no sense at all.[16]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > However, although this quotation concludes PM's section on
          > >>>> intercepts,
          > >>>> > > it
          > >>>> > > > > is far from the final word in Johnson's article. Rather, the
          > >>>> very next
          > >>>> > > > > paragraphs say:
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > Otis offers something close to that posture, however. Its 102d
          > >>>> Fighter
          > >>>> > > Wing
          > >>>> > > > > is equipped with 18 F-15 Eagles, twin-engine, supersonic,
          > >>>> air-to-air
          > >>>> > > combat
          > >>>> > > > > aircraft. . . .
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > The planes, which can fly at more than twice the speed of
          > >>>> sound, . . .
          > >>>> > > > > [have] responsibility for protecting Boston, New York,
          > >>>> Philadelphia,
          > >>>> > > and
          > >>>> > > > > Washington . . . .
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > To complete that mission, the unit has two armed and fueled
          > >>>> aircraft
          > >>>> > > ready
          > >>>> > > > > to fly around the clock, each day of the year, a unit
          > >>>> spokeswoman
          > >>>> > > said.[17]
          > >>>> > > > > (Emphasis added)
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > So much for PM's knockout punch. And so much, once again, for
          > >>>> its
          > >>>> > > > > reportorial honesty.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > The falsity of PM's claim is also evident from other sources.
          > >>>> For
          > >>>> > > example,
          > >>>> > > > > Major Steve Saari, an alert pilot at Tyndall Air Force Base,
          > >>>> has been
          > >>>> > > > > quoted as saying: "In practice, we fly with live missiles."[18]
          > >>>> > > Captain Tom
          > >>>> > > > > "Pickle" Herring, an alert pilot at Homestead Air Reserve Base
          > >>>> near
          > >>>> > > Miami,
          > >>>> > > > > has been quoted as saying: "[W]e have weapons on our jets. We
          > >>>> need to
          > >>>> > > be
          > >>>> > > > > postured such that no one would dare threaten us."[19]
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > Failing with all its claims, Debunking 9/11 Myths has done
          > >>>> nothing to
          > >>>> > > > > debunk the idea that the 9/11 attacks succeeded because there
          > >>>> had been
          > >>>> > > a
          > >>>> > > > > stand-down order.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [1] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 22.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [2] Glen Johnson, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis
          > >>>> Fighter Jets
          > >>>> > > > > Scrambled Too Late to Halt the Attacks," Boston Globe,
          > >>>> September 15,
          > >>>> > > 2001 (
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/bostonglobe091501.html
          > >>>> > > ).
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [3] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 24.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [4]Linda Slobodian, "NORAD on Heightened Alert: Role of Air
          > >>>> Defence
          > >>>> > > Agency
          > >>>> > > > > Rapidly Transformed in Wake of Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks,"
          > >>>> Calgary
          > >>>> > > Herald,
          > >>>> > > > > October 13, 2001 (
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/calgaryherald101301_scrables.html
          > >>>> > > );
          > >>>> > > > > Leslie Miller, "Military Now Notified Immediately of Unusual Air
          > >>>> > > Traffic
          > >>>> > > > > Events," Associated Press, August 12, 2002 (
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html
          > >>>> > > ).
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [5] Griffin, "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the
          > >>>> > > Official
          > >>>> > > > > Account Cannot Be True." This essay was first published in 2005
          > >>>> at
          > >>>> > > > > 911Review.com (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html).
          > >>>> It
          > >>>> > > was
          > >>>> > > > > next published in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of
          > >>>> 9-11-2001
          > >>>> > > > > (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006) and then in my Christian Faith and
          > >>>> the
          > >>>> > > Truth
          > >>>> > > > > Behind 9/11. The quoted statement is in note 35 of the first two
          > >>>> > > versions
          > >>>> > > > > and note 58 of the third one.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [6] In the statement from Martin cited in the AP story referred
          > >>>> to
          > >>>> > > above,
          > >>>> > > > > the 67 scrambles occurred from "September 2000 to June 2001,"
          > >>>> which
          > >>>> > > would
          > >>>> > > > > be nine months; here the months are reversed, making the period
          > >>>> in
          > >>>> > > question
          > >>>> > > > > sixteen months. Having been unable to locate the Colorado
          > >>>> Springs
          > >>>> > > Gazette
          > >>>> > > > > story, I do not know if PM introduced the error or if it simply
          > >>>> did not
          > >>>> > > > > notice the error in the Gazette story.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [7] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 24-25.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [8]Air Traffic Control Center, "ATCC Controller's Red Binder"
          > >>>> > > (available at
          > >>>> > > > > www.xavius.com/080198.htm), quoted in Ahmed, The War on
          > >>>> Freedom, 148.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [9] Slobodian, "NORAD on Heightened Alert."
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [10] General Accounting Office, "Continental Air Defense: A
          > >>>> Dedicated
          > >>>> > > Force
          > >>>> > > > > Is No Longer Needed," May 3, 1994 (
          > >>>> > > http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm).
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [11] Leslie Filson, Sovereign Skies: Air National Guard Takes
          > >>>> Command
          > >>>> > > of
          > >>>> > > > > 1st Air Force (Tyndall, Fl.: First Air Force, 1999), 52.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [12] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 23.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [13] Griffin, 9/11CROD 323 n. 31.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [14] "Fangs Bared: Florida's Eagles Stand Sentry Over Southern
          > >>>> Skies,"
          > >>>> > > > > Airman, December 1999 (
          > >>>> http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home.htm).
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [15] "Retired Air Force Col: They Lied to Us About the War and
          > >>>> About
          > >>>> > > 9/11
          > >>>> > > > > Itself," October 27, 2005 (
          > >>>> > > > > http://www.benfrank.net/blog/2005/10/27/oil_mafia_treason).
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [16] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 25.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [17] Johnson, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath."
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [18] Filson, Sovereign Skies, 96-97.
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > [19] Airman, December, 1999 (
          > >>>> > > http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm).
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Nathan Byrd <nfactor13@>
          > >>>> wrote:
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > > **
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > > Jeff: "Typical Christian, always demanding evidence (grumble,
          > >>>> > > grumble)! ;)"
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > > Evidence is not enough, I need proof, dammit! ;-)
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > > Jeff: "There's lots of varying information online about the
          > >>>> number
          > >>>> > > and
          > >>>> > > > > > nature of fighter jet intercepts over US soil. One writer,
          > >>>> claiming
          > >>>> > > to work
          > >>>> > > > > > in the Twin Towers, stated that hijacking was a major concern
          > >>>> of
          > >>>> > > businesses
          > >>>> > > > > > in these buildings, and that the airspace in that vicinity was
          > >>>> > > strictly
          > >>>> > > > > > off-limits for civilian aircraft.
          > >>>> > > > > > "
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
          > >>>> > > > > > "In an email message to John Kaminski (cc'd to a mailing
          > >>>> list) sent
          > >>>> > > in
          > >>>> > > > > > November 2003 Walter Burien <http://cafr1.com/> wrote:"
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > > I appreciate the source, but it more just hints at information
          > >>>> > > rather than
          > >>>> > > > > > giving it. Are these logs available anywhere to review? Do
          > >>>> they show
          > >>>> > > a
          > >>>> > > > > > consistent pattern over those 20 years, or was it dropping
          > >>>> off as
          > >>>> > > the years
          > >>>> > > > > > went by and the Cold War warmed (cooled?). How much did the
          > >>>> > > transponders on
          > >>>> > > > > > the plane have to do with response, and was the fact that the
          > >>>> 9/11
          > >>>> > > flights
          > >>>> > > > > > had theirs turned off at all significant, or should it have
          > >>>> made no
          > >>>> > > > > > difference at all? (If the latter, what was the purpose of
          > >>>> turning
          > >>>> > > them
          > >>>> > > > > > off?) Are there any interviews or testimony from the many
          > >>>> pilots who
          > >>>> > > almost
          > >>>> > > > > > got themselves blown out of the sky, and were any of those
          > >>>> pilots
          > >>>> > > flying
          > >>>> > > > > > passenger jets full of people?
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > > These are some of the obvious questions that come up. I'm
          > >>>> sure flight
          > >>>> > > > > > experts would have many more. If you have some more sources
          > >>>> that
          > >>>> > > would go
          > >>>> > > > > > towards those questions, that would be great.
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > > Nathan
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > > >
          > >>>> > > > >
          > >>>> > > >
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> > >
          > >>>> >
          > >>>>
          > >>>>
          > >>>
          > >>
          > >>
          > >
          > >
          >
        • Jeff Olson
          I think you said it all there, Joshua. JO
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I think you said it all there, Joshua.

            JO

            On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...> wrote:
             

            Perhaps the purpose of schools is to facilitate the existence of a nation that needs babysitting?



            On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
             

            Heh.  There's this cartoon of a school with a sign out front that reads: Kids Against Drugs or something like that - while in the background a truck is dumping Ritalin into the classrooms.  Got a smile from me. ;)


            Babbysitting?  Doesn't seem like much of a purpose versus "go to sleep, citizens"-style indoctrination - that is, the making of compliant, unquestioning citizens.

            Jeff O.


            On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
             

            On your last point, isn't that what some of the ADD and ADHD meds do? And isn't this often with the parents' consent? (This brings up a wider point: what are schools for? I don't mean anyone thinks openly in these terms, but it seems like the basic function is babysitting -- indoctrination or learning come in second or third place for that. And the meds merely help make the children more tolerable. It almost seems to me like people have kids who don't want to do all the things required to raising them. It's like they want the joy without the responsibilities or hassles, which is quite natural, but then these are saddled on everyone else, no?)

            Regards,

            Dan

            From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
            To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 11:29 PM
            Subject: Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY? (Was: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: 9-11)

             
            I would've used public schools as an example of measuring by two different standards.  By the conventional standard, government schools suck because, at least here, they fail at real education - critical thinking, basic reading comprehension, and so forth.  But of course by the elite/gov standards, that's a rip-roaring success!

            The fact that *some* kids leave school disliking corporations and cops could be seen as an acceptable failure because, after all, no system is perfect, and most of the kids are brainwashed. ;)  I don't know what the exact proportions of non-brainwashed to brainwashed kids are, of course (though I'd lean toward brainwashed), but your idea does point to how the plans of conspiring elites could, and I certain often do, fail: life is unpredictable, and no one can control the minds of others reliably enough to change that.

            At least for the time being.  That could change with advances in technology.  How about chips that regulate mood and thoughts to a degree?  How far-fetched is that, really?

            JO




          • Jeff Olson
            We were talking about religion, too, under that title. I think Wilkinson and Paul would be surprised at how eclectic their interests are. ;) JO
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              We were talking about religion, too, under that title.  

              I think Wilkinson and Paul would be surprised at how eclectic their interests are. ;)

              JO

              On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
               

              That's why I changed "Wilkinson -Ron Paul" to 9-11, since that is what we were talking about.



              --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
              >
              > Seriously, you and I have a very different theoretical take on the
              > stupidity of government.
              >
              > This could be an interesting discussion, and I don't want to give it short
              > shift by making a couple of simple claims, so please consider this post to
              > be a down-payment on a more involved analysis. Also, this is rather
              > off-the-cuff, so I reserve the right to amend any and all assertions. ;)
              >
              > First, the kinds of "stupidity" that government does is neither an
              > all-pervasive or simple subject. Governments can and do perform extremely
              > complex tasks, even when they are wildly inefficient or corrupt as hell
              > (which is pretty much always the case). The Soviets, for example (as I
              > mentioned before), couldn't build decent washing machines or buildings or
              > efficient markets, but their government programs did build some successful
              > space ships as well as the atom bomb. Ditto for the USG, except more so.
              >
              > The essence of government stupidity, I suggest, is not the building of or
              > performance of something, but rather the economic management of things -
              > particularly the financing aspect of things. I think what you're doing
              > here basically is conflating the inherent inability of government to run
              > businesslike operations - it always looks stupid doing that because it
              > lacks fundamental free market pricing and demand mechanisms - with the
              > actual production of things.
              >
              > Anyway, as I said, that's a preliminary down-payment on the subject. And
              > I'm changing the thread-name to suit this subject. Jesus, has anyone seen
              > more discussions proliferate - inappropriately - under one subject line
              > than the "Wilkinson/Ron Paul" thread title?
              >
              > So I'm changing this to "Government Stupidity?"
              >
              > Jeff O.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
              >
              > > Moronic? Imbecilic? Cretinous?
              > >
              > > JO ;)
              > >
              > >
              > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Joshua Katz <jalankatz@...> wrote:
              > >
              > >> **

              > >>
              > >>
              > >> And idiotic is a synonym for...
              > >>
              > >>
              > >> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:21 PM, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...> wrote:
              > >>
              > >>> **

              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >>> Even if that is true, and there were few intercepts well into American
              > >>> soil, that doesn't imply any lack of capability to do so. If you read the
              > >>> FAA regulations, they don't say, "Ah, all our policies of intercepting
              > >>> planes only applies to those on the outskirts of US territory." And for
              > >>> good reason, because that would be idiotic beyond belief.
              > >>>
              > >>> JO
              > >>>
              > >>>
              > >>> On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:11 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
              > >>>
              > >>>> **

              > >>>>
              > >>>>
              > >>>> My guess is as Nathan says below the vast majority of 'intercepts' were
              > >>>> at or near US borders, which obviously did not apply on 9-11.
              > >>>>
              > >>>>
              > >>>> --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@>
              > >>>> wrote:
              > >>>> >
              > >>>> > Being "prepared to" doesn't mean they wouldn't want to avoid shooting
              > >>>> a
              > >>>> > plane down until it's absolutely necessary. It's easily
              > >>>> understandable why
              > >>>> > that would prove unnecessary in almost all cases.
              > >>>> >
              > >>>> > Listening to military officials prior to 9/11 makes it clear that as a
              > >>>> > matter of policy fighter jets (or in some cases, helicopters) are
              > >>>> prepared
              > >>>> > to scramble quickly and be capable of a shoot-down. It seems entirely
              > >>>> > unreasonable if that weren't the case - that is, if the USG lacked a
              > >>>> > fast-response interdictive capability.
              > >>>> >
              > >>>> > Claims that US fighter jets/helicopters can't scramble to interdict
              > >>>> > unauthorized craft in a timely manner seem entirely non-credible to
              > >>>> me.
              > >>>> >
              > >>>> > What's not clear is exactly how many intercepts have occurred and
              > >>>> when. At
              > >>>> > least I can't find it online.
              > >>>> >
              > >>>> > JO
              > >>>> >
              > >>>> > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:43 PM, James <jeo1@> wrote:
              > >>>> >
              > >>>> > > **
              > >>>>
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> > > For one thing Jeff there has never been a shoot down of a civilian
              > >>>> > > airplane (that we know of).
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> > > So it isn't like this was an everyday occurrence.
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> > > The idea that the military should be ready at a moments notice to
              > >>>> shoot
              > >>>> > > down a civilian commercial airplane because it doesn't respond to
              > >>>> radio
              > >>>> > > calls, it shut off the transponder or even is a confirmed hijack is
              > >>>> not
              > >>>> > > realistic, nor would I want the military doing that as a matter of
              > >>>> > > "routine" procedure.
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, "Nathan Byrd" <nfactor13@>
              > >>>> > > wrote:
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > > > I'm still reading through this, but most of what I'm getting so
              > >>>> far is a
              > >>>> > > focus on wording primarily and looking for the tiniest
              > >>>> inconsistencies in
              > >>>> > > what one person said over here compared to what another person said
              > >>>> over
              > >>>> > > there. So far, it's very light on actual documentation of incidents
              > >>>> and
              > >>>> > > just taking what various officials have put out as estimates
              > >>>> without giving
              > >>>> > > me any way of answering extremely basic and obvious questions that
              > >>>> come up
              > >>>> > > as I'm reading.
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > > > For example, these paragraphs:
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > > > "Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took
              > >>>> off to
              > >>>> > > intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times. . . . Of
              > >>>> these
              > >>>> > > incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged
              > >>>> . . .
              > >>>> > > less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity. The
              > >>>> > > remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting
              > >>>> unidentified
              > >>>> > > aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.[10]
              > >>>> > > > "In the period from 1989 through 1992, according to this account,
              > >>>> NORAD
              > >>>> > > made an average of 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which
              > >>>> "involved
              > >>>> > > visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in
              > >>>> > > distress," not intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs.
              > >>>> Besides
              > >>>> > > the fact that 1992 was part of "the decade before 9/11," it is
              > >>>> doubtful
              > >>>> > > that the pattern of interceptions would have changed radically
              > >>>> after that.
              > >>>> > > > "With regard to NEADS in particular, Colonel John K. Scott, the
              > >>>> > > commander from March 1996 to June 1998, said: "We probably
              > >>>> 'scramble'
              > >>>> > > fighters once a week. When unknowns come up you have to make the
              > >>>> decision
              > >>>> > > to launch or not."[11]
              > >>>> > > > "PM has clearly not, therefore, debunked the idea that NORAD
              > >>>> routinely
              > >>>> > > intercepted planes over the continental United States. The question
              > >>>> > > remains, therefore, why this routine activity did not occur on
              > >>>> 9/11."
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > > > Ok, so let's start with the paragraph ending in citation [10]. I
              > >>>> went to
              > >>>> > > the actual source used to see context, and a couple things stand
              > >>>> out.
              > >>>> > > First, the deployment of the bases from which these aircraft
              > >>>> scramble is
              > >>>> > > primarily on the border, emphasizing external threats. (See
              > >>>> appendix I.)
              > >>>> > > Second, there's no indication that these scrambles were used for
              > >>>> domestic
              > >>>> > > commercial large jets. There's a lack of specifics, but nothing in
              > >>>> context
              > >>>> > > indicates that it was routine for any of these fighter jets to
              > >>>> scramble to
              > >>>> > > a regular domestic passenger plane. Third, the report clearly
              > >>>> indicates
              > >>>> > > that the military is routinely terrible at figuring out the
              > >>>> appropriate
              > >>>> > > deployment of resources to accomplish the missions it should be
              > >>>> doing and
              > >>>> > > tends to wastefully deploy resources for missions they're either
              > >>>> not good
              > >>>> > > at or aren't really needed to do at all. This shouldn't come as any
              > >>>> > > surprise to most of us here, but I just wanted to point out that the
              > >>>> > > military response was not set up as effectively as it could have
              > >>>> been for
              > >>>> > > many years prior to 9/11.
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > > > Regarding the [11] link, it's one statement without any context,
              > >>>> so I
              > >>>> > > went and looked up some other info on the person quoted. Here's one
              > >>>> report
              > >>>> > > where he is talked about:
              > >>>> > > http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00172.pdf
              > >>>> > > > And it seems apparent to me that his comment, when put into
              > >>>> context,
              > >>>> > > does not support the way it's being used here. I'd like to see the
              > >>>> book
              > >>>> > > itself, but my guess is that his comment is about airborne
              > >>>> objects/craft
              > >>>> > > that are outside the borders of the U.S. and that he does not
              > >>>> recount
              > >>>> > > numerous occasions where domestic passenger planes were
              > >>>> intercepted. I
              > >>>> > > could be wrong on that, but I don't see any support for the way
              > >>>> that this
              > >>>> > > particular blog/article is using his quote. Can you confirm the
              > >>>> context of
              > >>>> > > the book his statement is taken from?
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > > > Nathan
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > > > --- In LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com, Jeff Olson <jlolson53@>
              > >>>> wrote:
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > Nathan, I suggest going to the Pilots for Truth website. One
              > >>>> post I've
              > >>>> > > > > read recently does go into some fair detail. But - finding exact
              > >>>> > > response
              > >>>> > > > > times and detailed logs for USAF or National Guard intercepts?
              > >>>> I don't
              > >>>> > > see
              > >>>> > > > > it anywhere. The best I've seen is USAF spokespeople making
              > >>>> various
              > >>>> > > claims
              > >>>> > > > > - which does count as reasonably firm evidence, I think, that
              > >>>> > > intercepts
              > >>>> > > > > took place.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > I'll save you some trouble and paste something from David Ray
              > >>>> Griffin's
              > >>>> > > > > "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" - (which I own; I also own Popular
              > >>>> > > Mechanic's
              > >>>> > > > > Debunking book), copied from the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Website
              > >>>> > > > > (
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> file:///C:/911/Payne%20Stewart%20Intercept...%20Timelines%20-%20Pilots%20For%209%2011%20Truth%20Forum.htm
              > >>>> > > ):
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > Military Intercepts
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > In its final effort to debunk the idea that on 9/11 a
              > >>>> stand-down order
              > >>>> > > had
              > >>>> > > > > been issued (which was not rescinded until shortly before the
              > >>>> downing
              > >>>> > > of
              > >>>> > > > > Flight 93), PM disputes the 9/11 truth movement's claim that
              > >>>> NORAD's
              > >>>> > > > > fighter jets routinely intercepted planes and usually did so in
              > >>>> a
              > >>>> > > matter of
              > >>>> > > > > minutes. PM's contrary "fact" is that, "In the decade before
              > >>>> 9/11,
              > >>>> > > NORAD
              > >>>> > > > > intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer
              > >>>> Payne
              > >>>> > > > > Stewart's Learjet in October 1999."[1]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > No "Routine" Interceptions: One impediment to their claim was a
              > >>>> Boston
              > >>>> > > > > Globe article, quoted in The New Pearl Harbor, in which the
              > >>>> author,
              > >>>> > > Glen
              > >>>> > > > > Johnson, reported that NORAD spokesman Mike Snyder, speaking a
              > >>>> few days
              > >>>> > > > > after 9/11, said that NORAD's fighters, in Johnson's paraphrase,
              > >>>> > > "routinely
              > >>>> > > > > intercept aircraft."[2] To rebut this claim, our authors do not
              > >>>> cite
              > >>>> > > any
              > >>>> > > > > documentary evidence. They simply say: "When contacted by
              > >>>> Popular
              > >>>> > > > > Mechanics, spokesmen for NORAD and the FAA clarified their
              > >>>> remarks by
              > >>>> > > > > noting that scrambles were routine, but intercepts were
              > >>>> > > not---especially
              > >>>> > > > > over the continental United States."[3] But these alleged
              > >>>> "spokesmen"
              > >>>> > > > > remain anonymous, a fact suggesting that PM could not find
              > >>>> anyone in
              > >>>> > > either
              > >>>> > > > > NORAD or the FAA willing to have his or her name associated
              > >>>> with this
              > >>>> > > > > claim. PM has not really, therefore, undermined the statement
              > >>>> made by
              > >>>> > > NORAD
              > >>>> > > > > spokesman Mike Snyder, a few days after 9/11, that NORAD makes
              > >>>> > > > > interceptions routinely.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > The idea that interceptions occur regularly has not, of course,
              > >>>> been
              > >>>> > > based
              > >>>> > > > > solely or even primarily on Snyder's statement. It has also
              > >>>> been based
              > >>>> > > on
              > >>>> > > > > reports that fighters have been scrambled about a hundred times
              > >>>> a
              > >>>> > > year. A
              > >>>> > > > > 2001 story in the Calgary Herald reported that NORAD had
              > >>>> scrambled
              > >>>> > > fighters
              > >>>> > > > > 129 times in 2000; an Associated Press story in 2002 referred to
              > >>>> > > NORAD's
              > >>>> > > > > "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001."[4] By
              > >>>> extrapolation,
              > >>>> > > one
              > >>>> > > > > can infer that NORAD had scrambled fighters about a thousand
              > >>>> times in
              > >>>> > > the
              > >>>> > > > > decade prior to 9/11. This figure makes it very hard for Popular
              > >>>> > > Mechanics,
              > >>>> > > > > by claiming that most scrambles do not result in interceptions
              > >>>> (a claim
              > >>>> > > > > made by Benjamin Chertoff during a radio show debate with me
              > >>>> when he
              > >>>> > > was
              > >>>> > > > > still a PM spokesperson), to claim that only one civilian plane
              > >>>> had
              > >>>> > > been
              > >>>> > > > > intercepted in North America during the decade before 9/11. As I
              > >>>> > > argued in
              > >>>> > > > > print, this claim could be true "only if in all of these cases,
              > >>>> except
              > >>>> > > for
              > >>>> > > > > the Payne incident, the fighters were called back to base
              > >>>> before they
              > >>>> > > > > actually intercepted the aircraft in question. . . , a most
              > >>>> unlikely
              > >>>> > > > > possibility."[5]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > PM's solution to this problem is to argue not only that
              > >>>> interceptions
              > >>>> > > are
              > >>>> > > > > rare but also that scrambles are---at least scrambles within the
              > >>>> > > > > continental United States. But this solution faced a problem:
              > >>>> Major
              > >>>> > > Douglas
              > >>>> > > > > Martin, who on other issues has been quoted in support of PM's
              > >>>> > > position,
              > >>>> > > > > was the person who had been quoted in the Associated Press
              > >>>> story,
              > >>>> > > mentioned
              > >>>> > > > > above, about NORAD's "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June
              > >>>> 2001."
              > >>>> > > > > Martin himself had implied, in other words, that NORAD had been
              > >>>> > > scrambling
              > >>>> > > > > jets about 100 times a year. PM tries to neutralize this
              > >>>> statement by
              > >>>> > > > > saying:
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > However, the Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service produced a more
              > >>>> > > complete
              > >>>> > > > > account, which included an important qualification. Here's how
              > >>>> the
              > >>>> > > Knight
              > >>>> > > > > Ridder story appeared in the September 28, 2002, edition of the
              > >>>> > > Colorado
              > >>>> > > > > Springs Gazette: "From June 2000 to September 2001 [sic][6],
              > >>>> NORAD
              > >>>> > > > > scrambled fighters 67 times but not over the continental United
              > >>>> > > States. . .
              > >>>> > > > > . Before September 11, the only time officials recall
              > >>>> scrambling jets
              > >>>> > > over
              > >>>> > > > > the United States was when golfer Payne Stewart's plane veered
              > >>>> off
              > >>>> > > course
              > >>>> > > > > and crashed in South Dakota in 1999."
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > Except for that lone, tragic anomaly, all NORAD interceptions
              > >>>> from the
              > >>>> > > end
              > >>>> > > > > of the Cold war in 1989 until 9/11 took place in offshore Air
              > >>>> Defense
              > >>>> > > > > Identification Zones (ADIZ). . . . The planes intercepted in
              > >>>> these
              > >>>> > > zones
              > >>>> > > > > were primarily being used for drug smuggling.[7]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > There are several problems with this response. Two of them
              > >>>> involve
              > >>>> > > > > inconsistencies in PM's argument. For one thing, PM is supposed
              > >>>> to be
              > >>>> > > > > defending its claim that in the decade prior to 9/11 there had
              > >>>> been
              > >>>> > > only
              > >>>> > > > > one interception "over North America," but the qualification in
              > >>>> this
              > >>>> > > > > Knight-Ridder story speaks only of "the continental United
              > >>>> States."
              > >>>> > > The PM
              > >>>> > > > > authors have thereby ignored Canada, that other North American
              > >>>> country
              > >>>> > > that
              > >>>> > > > > is protected by NORAD, and Alaska. A second inconsistency is
              > >>>> that,
              > >>>> > > after
              > >>>> > > > > having emphasized the distinction between scrambles and
              > >>>> interceptions,
              > >>>> > > the
              > >>>> > > > > PM authors then conflate them. We can, however, set aside these
              > >>>> > > > > inconsistencies in order to focus on more serious problems.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > First, given the fact that the Knight-Ridder story not only
              > >>>> appeared
              > >>>> > > > > several months after the AP story but also appeared in a
              > >>>> newspaper in
              > >>>> > > > > Colorado Springs, near NORAD headquarters, it could be
              > >>>> disinformation
              > >>>> > > put
              > >>>> > > > > out to provide the basis for exactly the case that PM is now
              > >>>> > > making---that
              > >>>> > > > > NORAD's failure to intercept the airliners on 9/11 was not a
              > >>>> failure
              > >>>> > > to do
              > >>>> > > > > something that it had been doing routinely.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > Second, given this possibility, PM's description of the
              > >>>> Knight-Ridder
              > >>>> > > story
              > >>>> > > > > as a "more complete account" begs the question, because of the
              > >>>> > > possibility
              > >>>> > > > > that it is a distortion, rather than simply a more complete
              > >>>> account,
              > >>>> > > of the
              > >>>> > > > > truth. An indication that it does involve distortion, moreover,
              > >>>> is
              > >>>> > > provided
              > >>>> > > > > by the fact that Martin, in illustrating the increased number of
              > >>>> > > scrambles
              > >>>> > > > > after 9/11, said: "In June [2002], Air Force jets scrambled
              > >>>> three
              > >>>> > > times to
              > >>>> > > > > intercept small private planes that had wandered into restricted
              > >>>> > > airspace
              > >>>> > > > > around the White House and around Camp David." These clearly
              > >>>> were over
              > >>>> > > the
              > >>>> > > > > continental United States. If the Knight-Ridder qualification
              > >>>> were
              > >>>> > > true, we
              > >>>> > > > > would expect Martin to have said: "After 9/11, not only have
              > >>>> there been
              > >>>> > > > > more interceptions, but now some of them are within the
              > >>>> continental
              > >>>> > > United
              > >>>> > > > > States." But there is no indication in the AP story that he
              > >>>> made any
              > >>>> > > such
              > >>>> > > > > statement. Also, although PM interviewed Martin in 2004, it
              > >>>> gives no
              > >>>> > > sign
              > >>>> > > > > that he endorsed the Knight-Ridder qualification.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > A third problem with PM's defense is that, even if it were true
              > >>>> that
              > >>>> > > all
              > >>>> > > > > the interceptions had been offshore instead of over American or
              > >>>> > > Canadian
              > >>>> > > > > soil, that would do little to defend the military against the
              > >>>> charge
              > >>>> > > that
              > >>>> > > > > it had stood down on 9/11. The issue at hand is whether the
              > >>>> military
              > >>>> > > had
              > >>>> > > > > regularly intercepted planes. It matters not whether these
              > >>>> > > interceptions
              > >>>> > > > > were over the land or over the water.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > A fourth problem is the existence of reports that fighter jets
              > >>>> had
              > >>>> > > indeed
              > >>>> > > > > intercepted civilian planes quite regularly in the decades
              > >>>> prior to
              > >>>> > > 9/11. I
              > >>>> > > > > had quoted, for example, a 1998 document warning pilots that any
              > >>>> > > airplanes
              > >>>> > > > > persisting in unusual behavior "will likely find two [jet
              > >>>> fighters] on
              > >>>> > > > > their tail within 10 or so minutes."[8] Also, the above-cited
              > >>>> story in
              > >>>> > > the
              > >>>> > > > > Calgary Herald, which reported that NORAD had scrambled fighter
              > >>>> jets
              > >>>> > > 129
              > >>>> > > > > times in 2000, also said: "Fighter jets are scrambled to babysit
              > >>>> > > suspect
              > >>>> > > > > aircraft or `unknowns' three or four times a day. Before Sept.
              > >>>> 11, that
              > >>>> > > > > happened twice a week."[9] Twice a week would be about 100
              > >>>> times per
              > >>>> > > year,
              > >>>> > > > > and "babysitting" is not what jets would do with planes
              > >>>> suspected of
              > >>>> > > > > smuggling drugs into the country.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > A fifth problem for PM's claim---that in the decade before
              > >>>> 9/11, all of
              > >>>> > > > > NORAD's interceptions except one were offshore and primarily
              > >>>> involved
              > >>>> > > drug
              > >>>> > > > > smuggling---is a 1994 report from the General Accounting
              > >>>> Office, which
              > >>>> > > > > strongly contradicts this claim. It said:
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took
              > >>>> off to
              > >>>> > > > > intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times. . .
              > >>>> . Of
              > >>>> > > these
              > >>>> > > > > incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft
              > >>>> averaged .
              > >>>> > > . .
              > >>>> > > > > less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity.
              > >>>> The
              > >>>> > > > > remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting
              > >>>> unidentified
              > >>>> > > > > aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.[10]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > In the period from 1989 through 1992, according to this
              > >>>> account, NORAD
              > >>>> > > made
              > >>>> > > > > an average of 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which "involved
              > >>>> > > visually
              > >>>> > > > > inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in
              > >>>> distress,"
              > >>>> > > not
              > >>>> > > > > intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs. Besides the
              > >>>> fact that
              > >>>> > > > > 1992 was part of "the decade before 9/11," it is doubtful that
              > >>>> the
              > >>>> > > pattern
              > >>>> > > > > of interceptions would have changed radically after that.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > With regard to NEADS in particular, Colonel John K. Scott, the
              > >>>> > > commander
              > >>>> > > > > from March 1996 to June 1998, said: "We probably 'scramble'
              > >>>> fighters
              > >>>> > > once a
              > >>>> > > > > week. When unknowns come up you have to make the decision to
              > >>>> launch or
              > >>>> > > > > not."[11]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > PM has clearly not, therefore, debunked the idea that NORAD
              > >>>> routinely
              > >>>> > > > > intercepted planes over the continental United States. The
              > >>>> question
              > >>>> > > > > remains, therefore, why this routine activity did not occur on
              > >>>> 9/11.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > No Interceptions "Within Minutes": "Some conspiracy theorists,"
              > >>>> the PM
              > >>>> > > > > authors say, "mistakenly believe the Stewart case bolsters their
              > >>>> > > argument
              > >>>> > > > > that fighters can reach wayward passenger planes within
              > >>>> minutes."[12]
              > >>>> > > In
              > >>>> > > > > attempting to refute this belief, they argue that, because of a
              > >>>> > > crossing of
              > >>>> > > > > a time zone, Stewart's plane was not really intercepted within
              > >>>> 19
              > >>>> > > minutes,
              > >>>> > > > > as widely believed, but an hour and 19 minutes. Be that as it
              > >>>> may (I
              > >>>> > > have
              > >>>> > > > > elsewhere suggested that the documents are too confused to make
              > >>>> a firm
              > >>>> > > > > judgment[13]), the important issue is whether, prior to 9/11,
              > >>>> scrambled
              > >>>> > > > > fighters regularly intercepted aircraft within minutes.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > There is evidence that they did. Above, I quoted a 1998 document
              > >>>> > > stating
              > >>>> > > > > that fighters commonly intercept aircraft "within 10 or so
              > >>>> minutes."
              > >>>> > > Also,
              > >>>> > > > > in a 1999 story, a full-time alert pilot at Homestead Air
              > >>>> Reserve Base
              > >>>> > > > > (near Miami) was quoted as saying, "If needed, we could be
              > >>>> killing
              > >>>> > > things
              > >>>> > > > > in five minutes or less."[14]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > These reports suggest that unless there had been a stand-down
              > >>>> order on
              > >>>> > > > > 9/11, any hijacked airliners would have been intercepted within
              > >>>> 10
              > >>>> > > minutes
              > >>>> > > > > or so. This contention is supported by former Air Force Colonel
              > >>>> Robert
              > >>>> > > > > Bowman, who was an interceptor pilot before becoming head of
              > >>>> the "Star
              > >>>> > > > > Wars" program during the Ford and Carter administrations. He
              > >>>> has said:
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > If our government had merely done nothing---and I say that as
              > >>>> an old
              > >>>> > > > > interceptor pilot and I know the drill, I know what it takes, I
              > >>>> know
              > >>>> > > how
              > >>>> > > > > long it takes, I know what the procedures are . . . ---if our
              > >>>> > > government
              > >>>> > > > > had merely done nothing and allowed normal procedures to happen
              > >>>> on that
              > >>>> > > > > morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing and
              > >>>> thousands
              > >>>> > > of
              > >>>> > > > > Americans would still be alive.[15]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > No Armed Fighters on Alert: The PM authors argue at the end of
              > >>>> their
              > >>>> > > > > section on military intercepts---evidently intending this as
              > >>>> their
              > >>>> > > knockout
              > >>>> > > > > punch---that between the end of the Cold War and 9/11, the US
              > >>>> did not
              > >>>> > > even
              > >>>> > > > > keep armed fighters on alert. To support this astounding claim,
              > >>>> our
              > >>>> > > authors
              > >>>> > > > > again cite no documentary evidence. They do not even quote
              > >>>> anyone from
              > >>>> > > the
              > >>>> > > > > U.S. military. They rely entirely on a statement from former
              > >>>> Senator
              > >>>> > > Warren
              > >>>> > > > > Rudman (Republican from New Hampshire), who was quoted in Glen
              > >>>> > > Johnson's
              > >>>> > > > > 2001 Boston Globe article as saying:
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > We don't have capable fighter aircraft loaded with missiles
              > >>>> sitting on
              > >>>> > > > > runways in this country. We just don't do that anymore. . . .
              > >>>> [T]o
              > >>>> > > expect
              > >>>> > > > > American fighter aircraft to intercept commercial airliners . .
              > >>>> . is
              > >>>> > > > > totally unrealistic and makes no sense at all.[16]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > However, although this quotation concludes PM's section on
              > >>>> intercepts,
              > >>>> > > it
              > >>>> > > > > is far from the final word in Johnson's article. Rather, the
              > >>>> very next
              > >>>> > > > > paragraphs say:
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > Otis offers something close to that posture, however. Its 102d
              > >>>> Fighter
              > >>>> > > Wing
              > >>>> > > > > is equipped with 18 F-15 Eagles, twin-engine, supersonic,
              > >>>> air-to-air
              > >>>> > > combat
              > >>>> > > > > aircraft. . . .
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > The planes, which can fly at more than twice the speed of
              > >>>> sound, . . .
              > >>>> > > > > [have] responsibility for protecting Boston, New York,
              > >>>> Philadelphia,
              > >>>> > > and
              > >>>> > > > > Washington . . . .
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > To complete that mission, the unit has two armed and fueled
              > >>>> aircraft
              > >>>> > > ready
              > >>>> > > > > to fly around the clock, each day of the year, a unit
              > >>>> spokeswoman
              > >>>> > > said.[17]
              > >>>> > > > > (Emphasis added)
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > So much for PM's knockout punch. And so much, once again, for
              > >>>> its
              > >>>> > > > > reportorial honesty.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > The falsity of PM's claim is also evident from other sources.
              > >>>> For
              > >>>> > > example,
              > >>>> > > > > Major Steve Saari, an alert pilot at Tyndall Air Force Base,
              > >>>> has been
              > >>>> > > > > quoted as saying: "In practice, we fly with live missiles."[18]
              > >>>> > > Captain Tom
              > >>>> > > > > "Pickle" Herring, an alert pilot at Homestead Air Reserve Base
              > >>>> near
              > >>>> > > Miami,
              > >>>> > > > > has been quoted as saying: "[W]e have weapons on our jets. We
              > >>>> need to
              > >>>> > > be
              > >>>> > > > > postured such that no one would dare threaten us."[19]
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > Failing with all its claims, Debunking 9/11 Myths has done
              > >>>> nothing to
              > >>>> > > > > debunk the idea that the 9/11 attacks succeeded because there
              > >>>> had been
              > >>>> > > a
              > >>>> > > > > stand-down order.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [1] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 22.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [2] Glen Johnson, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath: Otis
              > >>>> Fighter Jets
              > >>>> > > > > Scrambled Too Late to Halt the Attacks," Boston Globe,
              > >>>> September 15,
              > >>>> > > 2001 (
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> http://www.fromthewilderness.com/timeline/2001/bostonglobe091501.html
              > >>>> > > ).
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [3] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 24.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [4]Linda Slobodian, "NORAD on Heightened Alert: Role of Air
              > >>>> Defence
              > >>>> > > Agency
              > >>>> > > > > Rapidly Transformed in Wake of Sept. 11 Terrorist Attacks,"
              > >>>> Calgary
              > >>>> > > Herald,
              > >>>> > > > > October 13, 2001 (
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/calgaryherald101301_scrables.html
              > >>>> > > );
              > >>>> > > > > Leslie Miller, "Military Now Notified Immediately of Unusual Air
              > >>>> > > Traffic
              > >>>> > > > > Events," Associated Press, August 12, 2002 (
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html
              > >>>> > > ).
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [5] Griffin, "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the
              > >>>> > > Official
              > >>>> > > > > Account Cannot Be True." This essay was first published in 2005
              > >>>> at
              > >>>> > > > > 911Review.com (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html).
              > >>>> It
              > >>>> > > was
              > >>>> > > > > next published in Paul Zarembka, ed., The Hidden History of
              > >>>> 9-11-2001
              > >>>> > > > > (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006) and then in my Christian Faith and
              > >>>> the
              > >>>> > > Truth
              > >>>> > > > > Behind 9/11. The quoted statement is in note 35 of the first two
              > >>>> > > versions
              > >>>> > > > > and note 58 of the third one.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [6] In the statement from Martin cited in the AP story referred
              > >>>> to
              > >>>> > > above,
              > >>>> > > > > the 67 scrambles occurred from "September 2000 to June 2001,"
              > >>>> which
              > >>>> > > would
              > >>>> > > > > be nine months; here the months are reversed, making the period
              > >>>> in
              > >>>> > > question
              > >>>> > > > > sixteen months. Having been unable to locate the Colorado
              > >>>> Springs
              > >>>> > > Gazette
              > >>>> > > > > story, I do not know if PM introduced the error or if it simply
              > >>>> did not
              > >>>> > > > > notice the error in the Gazette story.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [7] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 24-25.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [8]Air Traffic Control Center, "ATCC Controller's Red Binder"
              > >>>> > > (available at
              > >>>> > > > > www.xavius.com/080198.htm), quoted in Ahmed, The War on
              > >>>> Freedom, 148.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [9] Slobodian, "NORAD on Heightened Alert."
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [10] General Accounting Office, "Continental Air Defense: A
              > >>>> Dedicated
              > >>>> > > Force
              > >>>> > > > > Is No Longer Needed," May 3, 1994 (
              > >>>> > > http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm).
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [11] Leslie Filson, Sovereign Skies: Air National Guard Takes
              > >>>> Command
              > >>>> > > of
              > >>>> > > > > 1st Air Force (Tyndall, Fl.: First Air Force, 1999), 52.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [12] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 23.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [13] Griffin, 9/11CROD 323 n. 31.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [14] "Fangs Bared: Florida's Eagles Stand Sentry Over Southern
              > >>>> Skies,"
              > >>>> > > > > Airman, December 1999 (
              > >>>> http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home.htm).
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [15] "Retired Air Force Col: They Lied to Us About the War and
              > >>>> About
              > >>>> > > 9/11
              > >>>> > > > > Itself," October 27, 2005 (
              > >>>> > > > > http://www.benfrank.net/blog/2005/10/27/oil_mafia_treason).
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [16] Debunking 9/11 Myths, 25.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [17] Johnson, "Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath."
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [18] Filson, Sovereign Skies, 96-97.
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > [19] Airman, December, 1999 (
              > >>>> > > http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm).
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > On Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Nathan Byrd <nfactor13@>
              > >>>> wrote:
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > > **
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > > Jeff: "Typical Christian, always demanding evidence (grumble,
              > >>>> > > grumble)! ;)"
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > > Evidence is not enough, I need proof, dammit! ;-)
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > > Jeff: "There's lots of varying information online about the
              > >>>> number
              > >>>> > > and
              > >>>> > > > > > nature of fighter jet intercepts over US soil. One writer,
              > >>>> claiming
              > >>>> > > to work
              > >>>> > > > > > in the Twin Towers, stated that hijacking was a major concern
              > >>>> of
              > >>>> > > businesses
              > >>>> > > > > > in these buildings, and that the airspace in that vicinity was
              > >>>> > > strictly
              > >>>> > > > > > off-limits for civilian aircraft.
              > >>>> > > > > > "
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
              > >>>> > > > > > "In an email message to John Kaminski (cc'd to a mailing
              > >>>> list) sent
              > >>>> > > in
              > >>>> > > > > > November 2003 Walter Burien <http://cafr1.com/> wrote:"
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > > I appreciate the source, but it more just hints at information
              > >>>> > > rather than
              > >>>> > > > > > giving it. Are these logs available anywhere to review? Do
              > >>>> they show
              > >>>> > > a
              > >>>> > > > > > consistent pattern over those 20 years, or was it dropping
              > >>>> off as
              > >>>> > > the years
              > >>>> > > > > > went by and the Cold War warmed (cooled?). How much did the
              > >>>> > > transponders on
              > >>>> > > > > > the plane have to do with response, and was the fact that the
              > >>>> 9/11
              > >>>> > > flights
              > >>>> > > > > > had theirs turned off at all significant, or should it have
              > >>>> made no
              > >>>> > > > > > difference at all? (If the latter, what was the purpose of
              > >>>> turning
              > >>>> > > them
              > >>>> > > > > > off?) Are there any interviews or testimony from the many
              > >>>> pilots who
              > >>>> > > almost
              > >>>> > > > > > got themselves blown out of the sky, and were any of those
              > >>>> pilots
              > >>>> > > flying
              > >>>> > > > > > passenger jets full of people?
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > > These are some of the obvious questions that come up. I'm
              > >>>> sure flight
              > >>>> > > > > > experts would have many more. If you have some more sources
              > >>>> that
              > >>>> > > would go
              > >>>> > > > > > towards those questions, that would be great.
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > > Nathan
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > > >
              > >>>> > > > >
              > >>>> > > >
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> > >
              > >>>> >
              > >>>>
              > >>>>
              > >>>
              > >>
              > >>
              > >
              > >
              >


            • Dan
              I was hinting at the rather simplistic view that various wars or foreign policy things are all driven by oil -- as if oil were the one and only thing everyone
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                I was hinting at the rather simplistic view that various wars or foreign policy things are all driven by oil -- as if oil were the one and only thing everyone in the State Dept. and Pentagon are interested in. Instead, most of these things seem to occur because many influential factions line up whose interests might vary a lot on oil, but do line up on the issue of going to war. (And if it were about oil, why not attack Nigeria and Norway?)

                Regards,

                Dan

                From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
                To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 1:00 PM
                Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?

                 
                I might not send my kids to school to avoid spending money on oil products. ;)  In fact, that was a major reason for homeschooling our kids when we lived out in Bum Fuck Egypt (in the northern ca countryside).

                JO

                On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                 
                Yes, I try to avoid "it's all about oil" arguments.

                Regards,

                Dan
                Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:24 PM
                Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?
                 
                True.  I wasn't speaking to the motivation of parents.  

                JO

                On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                 
                I don't mean everyone got together and said, "What do we need schools for? Oh, indoctrination!" (To be sure, that was the initial reason, it seems to me, for most public schooling. In the US, in particular, it seemed to be for assimilating those Catholics into Protestant culture. At least, reading some of the history gave me that impression.) Rather, it seems like parents mainly tend to use schools as babysitters and to cover their gaps as mediocre parents.

                Regards,

                Dan
                Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:19 AM
                Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?

                 
                Heh.  There's this cartoon of a school with a sign out front that reads: Kids Against Drugs or something like that - while in the background a truck is dumping Ritalin into the classrooms.  Got a smile from me. ;)

                Babbysitting?  Doesn't seem like much of a purpose versus "go to sleep, citizens"-style indoctrination - that is, the making of compliant, unquestioning citizens.

                Jeff O.

                On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote: 
                On your last point, isn't that what some of the ADD and ADHD meds do? And isn't this often with the parents' consent? (This brings up a wider point: what are schools for? I don't mean anyone thinks openly in these terms, but it seems like the basic function is babysitting -- indoctrination or learning come in second or third place for that. And the meds merely help make the children more tolerable. It almost seems to me like people have kids who don't want to do all the things required to raising them. It's like they want the joy without the responsibilities or hassles, which is quite natural, but then these are saddled on everyone else, no?)

                Regards,

                Dan

              • Jeff Olson
                Attack Norway???!! That s sacrilege, Dan. JO
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Attack Norway???!! That's sacrilege, Dan.  

                  JO

                  On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                   

                  I was hinting at the rather simplistic view that various wars or foreign policy things are all driven by oil -- as if oil were the one and only thing everyone in the State Dept. and Pentagon are interested in. Instead, most of these things seem to occur because many influential factions line up whose interests might vary a lot on oil, but do line up on the issue of going to war. (And if it were about oil, why not attack Nigeria and Norway?)

                  Regards,

                  Dan
                  Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 1:00 PM

                  Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?

                   
                  I might not send my kids to school to avoid spending money on oil products. ;)  In fact, that was a major reason for homeschooling our kids when we lived out in Bum Fuck Egypt (in the northern ca countryside).

                  JO

                  On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                   
                  Yes, I try to avoid "it's all about oil" arguments.

                  Regards,

                  Dan
                  Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 12:24 PM
                  Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?
                   
                  True.  I wasn't speaking to the motivation of parents.  

                  JO

                  On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote:
                   
                  I don't mean everyone got together and said, "What do we need schools for? Oh, indoctrination!" (To be sure, that was the initial reason, it seems to me, for most public schooling. In the US, in particular, it seemed to be for assimilating those Catholics into Protestant culture. At least, reading some of the history gave me that impression.) Rather, it seems like parents mainly tend to use schools as babysitters and to cover their gaps as mediocre parents.

                  Regards,

                  Dan
                  Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 11:19 AM
                  Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?

                   
                  Heh.  There's this cartoon of a school with a sign out front that reads: Kids Against Drugs or something like that - while in the background a truck is dumping Ritalin into the classrooms.  Got a smile from me. ;)

                  Babbysitting?  Doesn't seem like much of a purpose versus "go to sleep, citizens"-style indoctrination - that is, the making of compliant, unquestioning citizens.

                  Jeff O.

                  On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote: 
                  On your last point, isn't that what some of the ADD and ADHD meds do? And isn't this often with the parents' consent? (This brings up a wider point: what are schools for? I don't mean anyone thinks openly in these terms, but it seems like the basic function is babysitting -- indoctrination or learning come in second or third place for that. And the meds merely help make the children more tolerable. It almost seems to me like people have kids who don't want to do all the things required to raising them. It's like they want the joy without the responsibilities or hassles, which is quite natural, but then these are saddled on everyone else, no?)

                  Regards,

                  Dan


                • Dan
                  We should change the title to ricin or sarin to involve them with the NSA. :) Regards, Dan ________________________________ From: Jeff Olson
                  Message 8 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    We should change the title to 'ricin" or "sarin" to involve them with the NSA. :)

                    Regards,

                    Dan


                    From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
                    To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 1:53 PM
                    Subject: Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY? (Was: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: 9-11)

                     
                    We were talking about religion, too, under that title.  

                    I think Wilkinson and Paul would be surprised at how eclectic their interests are. ;)

                    JO

                    On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:40 PM, James <jeo1@...> wrote:
                     
                    That's why I changed "Wilkinson -Ron Paul" to 9-11, since that is what we were talking about.


                  • Dan
                    I rest my case. (Have you ever even been there?:) Regards, Dan ________________________________ From: Jeff Olson To:
                    Message 9 of 19 , Mar 1, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      I rest my case. (Have you ever even been there?:)

                      Regards,

                      Dan

                      From: Jeff Olson <jlolson53@...>
                      To: LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2012 1:58 PM
                      Subject: Re: [LeftLibertarian2] Re: GOVERNMENT STUPIDITY?

                       
                      Attack Norway???!! That's sacrilege, Dan.  

                      JO

                      On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Dan <dan_ust@...> wrote: 
                      I was hinting at the rather simplistic view that various wars or foreign policy things are all driven by oil -- as if oil were the one and only thing everyone in the State Dept. and Pentagon are interested in. Instead, most of these things seem to occur because many influential factions line up whose interests might vary a lot on oil, but do line up on the issue of going to war. (And if it were about oil, why not attack Nigeria and Norway?)

                      Regards,

                      Dan

                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.