From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #344 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, September 13 2001 Volume 10 : Number 344 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Bits & bobs from BBC ["Rob" ] Re: Security ["Sweet & Tender Hooligan" ] Re: Security ["Maximilian Lang" ] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [lj lindhurst ] Re: axis to grind [not TOO long...] [Christopher Gross ] Re: Security [The Great Quail ] Cockpit [The Great Quail ] Re: Security [Christopher Gross ] RE: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 ["Bachman, Michael" ] Fred Browneagle ["Sweet & Tender Hooligan" ] Re: Security/Ireland [grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan)] Re: IRA [Michael R Godwin ] Re: Security [Christopher Gross ] Re: Security [] Re: Security ["Sweet & Tender Hooligan" ] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [strange little woj ] Canada ? [Mike Swedene ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 14:10:07 +0100 From: "Rob" Subject: Bits & bobs from BBC Last Night of the Proms The BBC have changed the programme for Saturday's Last Night of the Proms as a result of Tuesday's attacks. The usual celebratory music such as Elgar's Pomp & Circumstance is replaced by much more sombre music. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/music/newsid_15410 00/1541921.stm Something else which may be of interest, at the Changing of the Guard ceremony at Buckingham Palace today the US national anthem was played followed by two minutes silence to remember those who died. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1541000/1541355.stm Rob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:26:14 -0500 From: "Sweet & Tender Hooligan" Subject: Re: Security > Yeah yeah yeah. I thought of this this morning. Spouted > off to one of me classmates, I did. She told me it was > a good idea, but fatally flawed. A really secure door > would cause problems in air pressure, apparently. They've > tried such things, and they don't work. That's what she > said. I heard some people yesterday talking about the idea that there should be two entrances to a plane from the outside - one that goes into the cockpit and one that goes into the passengers' area, with no doorway connecting the two. It would be much easier to ensure that the guys getting into the cockpit were okay than it would to make sure all the passengers were. Of course, passengers could still carry on bombs and whatnot, and they could threaten to kill the passengers, but they wouldn't be able to actually take control of the plane. And it wouldn't do any good to kill passengers if they knew that, whatever they did, they weren't going to control the flight. It's not foolproof, but it's a thought. s&th cirhsein@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:30:17 -0400 From: "Maximilian Lang" Subject: Re: Security >From: Capuchin >My trumpet instructor had the best suggestion and I was as shocked as he >was that it hadn't yet been suggested: Secure the cockpit. Lock it down >and don't let anybody in or out. Duh. It's a small measure that could >really help save lives. > >J. Seems like a good idea until the hijacker starts slaughtering passengers and crew. 'Okay we are going to kill two passengers every minute until you give us access to the cockpit'. As you pointed out these people are desperate, do you really think they care about the passengers? Max _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:32:08 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones >On Thu, Sep 13, 2001, Maximilian Lang wrote: >> These pix help bring into focus just what happened, bringing the >> abstract into reality. They were just so big, unless you have seen >> them repeatedly and been to the top I don't think you could ever >> really understand just how traumatizing it is. It was not just one >> behemoth but two. So fucked up. > >Yes. One thing I always loved to do was to walk up to the base of one >of the towers, stand right against it, and look straight up it. Total >mindfuck. It just didn't end. Yes! I have done that a million times, too. You're right, a total mindfuck. Summer before last, Allen and I saw Philip Glass in a free concert in the plaza between the towers. Both of us spent nearly the entire time sitting on the ground, listening to the music and staring straight up at the towers. It was mind-boggling. Do people realize how GIGANTIC these two buildings were? To level ONE of them would be amazing, but to level BOTH of these buildings is beyond belief. I, too, have been up on the observation deck a couple of times. I have also eaten at the restaurant, Windows on the World, which was a very swanky restaurant in the top (119th floor, I think-?). There was also a wonderful bar/nightclub on the same floor there called "The Greatest Bar on Earth". It was a really beautiful bar, very large and modern, and there was always live music. It was one of my favorite places to go, especially when we had people in from out of town. We all went there one night and went swing dancing even! And now it's TOTALLY GONE. Not just the bar, but the entire building. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:33:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: axis to grind [not TOO long...] On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Michael Wolfe wrote: > Chris, here's a simple example of what I meant, re: reason versus > justification. I understand that distinction; but IMO you are blurring your own distinction. You focus almost entirely on the reasons that (you think) the US has given the terrorists, while the terrorists' unjustified reaction is passed over with a short acknowledgement. This seems to put the burden of guilt on the US, not the terrorists. It isn't "justification," true, but it IS saying that the unjustified attack was the fault of the US more than that of the terrorists, and that it is the US (and apparently the US alone) who should change. Re: US foreign policy, all you seem to be saying is that American policy is based on American interests, not absolute good. (This is no surprise; it could be said equally truthfully of every other country that exists or has existed, back to the dawn of time.) But I *suspect* you still aren't looking at the varied and complex motivations *why* the US might have done various nasty things, but simply assume it's unjustifiable greed ... much as a right-wing bigot might simply assume the terrorists feel a baseless and inexplicable hatred of America. (And in case there's any doubt, I do oppose a lot of US foreign policies, eg, the Iraqi embargo.) One question we've all avoided is the terrorists' *goals*, what they want to achieve rather than what provoked them. Assuming it was radical Muslims, what do we feel about their goals? Personally, I'm all for Palestinian statehood within their current territory, but not so keen on the radicals' further goal of destroying Israel and killing or driving out the Jews.... > But another part of it is that I didn't want to assess how hard > we had 'punched' (and the why's and wherefores) because I didn't > want to get into a situation where it looked like I was ascribing > blame to the US. I'm not, I don't, I didn't, and I won't. I'm sure you didn't intend it, but that IS how your argument sounds to the casual reader. (IMO.) You concentrate on how the US has provoked this attack and must change its behavior to avoid future attacks; that sounds very much like you're assigning responsibility to the US. And responsibility is equivalent, or at least very close, to blame. > You- > hit-me-back-first arguments are stupid. I'm arguing that, once > justice is served for those individuals responsible, the buck > should stop here. No problem with that. > And yeah, I misspelled 'Tomahawk'. Guess I'm not so enraptured > with the ins and outs of military hardware as you. Hey, did I make a big deal out of it? Please don't take that one capital A and leap to the conclusion that I'm Tom Clancy Jr. > First of all, up yours and up your whole family's for putting > words in my mouth suggesting that I said that it's all America's > fault. YOUR WORDS, not mine. Sorry, but I think that IS the logical conclusion of your own argument. See above. It's a judgement call, and maybe my logic is wrong. But it was an honest response to your argument, not an attempt to twist your words into something different. Going back a bit: > >The funny thing is, yesterday's attacks shouldn't even matter to > >your main argument, that US foreign policy is evil and should be > >changed. If it's evil, we should change it regardless of > >whether or not anyone attacks us for it. ... > Now, of the two paragraphs above, to the first one, I say, YES, > ABSOLUTELY. SPOT ON. What you miss, though, Chris, is that the > attacks *do* matter. The timing *does* matter. We are grieving > now. More importantly, we are in REACTION mode right now. > There's all this need to DO something. To make sure this NEVER, > EVER happens again. So you ARE using this attack as an opportunity to advocate your causes (or "grind your usual axes"). We therefore both agree on *what* you're doing. I just differ from you at feeling a negative emotional reaction to your doing so. To summarize: Whatever policies the US should change, whatever we might have done to piss someone off, this attack was the TERRORISTS' OWN CHOICE and THEY THEMSELVES are responsible for it. And focusing on how evil the US is, rather than how evil the terrorists are, does not go over well with me right now. And I'd like to reiterate that I'm only picking on Michael because I saw his first post at the right moment; you can assume I have similar responses to all who made similar arguments. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:36:21 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: IRA >The Great Quail wrote: >> >> Certainly, official IRA >> doctrine makes a statement about the IRA being a military >> organization, and they generally realize the value of keeping their >> targets "acceptable" in terms of guerilla warfare Stewart responded: >Dear Quail, I hope that posting was an aberration. >> That's all that I meant, I hope I gave no offense. >more than you can imagine. Come on, Stewart, you know what I meant, it's plain in black and white. What I stated *is* official IRA doctrine. I have already said they do not always follow it, and there are numerous rogue and splinter groups. There are numerous times the IRA has publicly announced that they see military and police targets as acceptable in military terms. They realize the *value* of this image, as it gives them a sense of legitimacy which some terrorists groups lack. They consider themselves an underground army, not a terrorist group. As Mike mentioned, it has even lead some of their "leaders" to apologize for acts they see as damaging to this sense of purpose. (Of course, these apologize bring no lost lives back.) I am not condoning the IRA, supporting it, justifying it, believing their policy whole-heartedly, or anything else but just *reporting* what their doctrine is, and what the value in terms of their image and sense of self. So get off my back! I think it's obvious from my other postings that I do not condone bombing innocent people, regardless of the doctrine espoused! But I do disagree with Mike Godwin -- there *is* a difference between the stickies, provos, INLA and so on. If you really want to understand the motivations and operations of a group, you had best understand their self-image and internal politics. While it may be tempting to tar them all with the same brush, that serves emotion better than reason. Though I do understand -- and agree -- that the real "hard men" will move from one faction to another, whichever allows them to be the most violent. But that does not mean you can safely disregard the politics of the individual groups -- the Protestant ones, either, of course, who can be just as evil or stubborn. I also can't adopt your belief that it doesn't matter who governs Northern Ireland! Of course it matters, or there wouldn't be the Troubles. Questions of freedom, religion, economic concerns, and self-identity are paramount. It's a big mess, and frankly, I can understand the concerns of both sides. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:39:29 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: Security Capuchin writes, >Anything is a weapon if you hold it right. > >Perhaps all flights should come with IV drips that just sedated everyone >for the duration. Oh come on, Jeme, that's glib and facetious even for you, let alone just ridiculous. Three powerful men armed with four-inch knives present a much more credible threat than three men armed with belts, chair legs, or shaving kits. Personally, Jeme, I think it's high time that you shut the fuck up. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:41:55 -0700 From: The Great Quail Subject: Cockpit One trouble with a sealed cockpit is that terrorists can begin murdering passengers one by one until the pilot concedes to demands and opens up the cockpit. Of course, in this case, that might have saved lives. In most hijacking cases, the plane is not used as a bomb. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:43:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Security Having a cockpit completely separate fromt he body of the plane might be a good idea, but it probably couldn't be retrofitted to already existing planes. I think the locked door approach has potential; they could have air holes in it to equalize the pressure. (And of course the pilots would have to jam a chemical toilet into the cockpit somehwere.) At the very least, there should be a rule that at the first sign of trouble the pilots must shut their door and not open it for ANY reason, including hearing people being tortured to death in the passenger cabin. One thing we might see: a complete ban on carry-on luggage. Another possibility would be a second set of metal detectors on right befor you board the plane, though that would be prohibitively expensive. Some people (not on this list) have wondered why the passengers and crew didn't fight more, given that the terrorists only had knives. My guess is it's because they couldn't believe the terrorists were REALLY going to kill them all, instead of using them as hostages. No doubt future hijack victims will be a bit more inclined to fight back.... - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 09:49:11 -0400 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 - -----Original Message----- From: Viv Lyon [mailto:vivlyon@bitmine.net] Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 1:52 AM To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Subject: Re: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, James Dignan wrote: > >>Should we train pilots and stewards in self-defense? > >> of course. I would have expected that this was standard practice anyway. >You wouldn't know it to look at the flabby captains and scrawny, frail >hostesses. I highly doubt any of them could take even a moderately >determined depressed fanatic, much less a savagely determined suicidal >fanatic. The heros on Flight 93 took care of the sub-human hijackers after taking a vote that Flight 93 wasn't going to reach the destination of the hijackers. They gave up their lives, but saved lives by crashing into rural Pennsylvania instead of the hijackers intended target. I would have done anything within my power to stop those hijackers if I was on Flight 93. Flight 93 passengers alreay knew about the WTC crashes from cell phone calls. Michael ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:48:53 -0500 From: "Sweet & Tender Hooligan" Subject: Re: Security > Some people (not on this list) have wondered why > the passengers and crew didn't fight more, given > that the terrorists only had knives. No shit. My cousin was saying last night that he couldn't imagine why 60 people on a flight couldn't overcome 3 guys with box cutters. As you note, however, people don't expect the plane to be intentionally crashed. Also, aren't we typically told to "go with the flow" in those kind of situations. Another possibility is that the terrorists killed the pilots before anyone knew what was going on, and the passengers had no choice but to let them fly the plane. What if...why didn't...how come...? *sigh* s&th cirhsein@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:49:52 -0500 From: "Sweet & Tender Hooligan" Subject: Fred Browneagle Could you please contact me directly? My hard drive at work fried out last week, and I haven't got your email. Thanx. s&th cirhsein@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 02:22:49 +1200 From: grutness@surf4nix.com (James Dignan) Subject: Re: Security/Ireland >> My trumpet instructor had the best suggestion and I was as shocked as he >> was that it hadn't yet been suggested: Secure the cockpit. Lock it down >> and don't let anybody in or out. Duh. It's a small measure that could >> really help save lives. > >Yeah yeah yeah. I thought of this this morning. Spouted off to one of me >classmates, I did. She told me it was a good idea, but fatally flawed. A >really secure door would cause problems in air pressure, apparently. >They've tried such things, and they don't work. That's what she said. Me, >I don't know from air pressure. I know that I'm damn tired, though. That wouldn't matter if it was a secure door with vents (maybe vents not between cockpit and the rest of the plane, but - I don't know, into a one or two inch wide duct in the floor?). It would cut possible take-overs down to someone gassing the whole plane. In which case the plane would go down, but couldn't be used as a missile. >PS What makes it particularly pointless is that the UK and the Irish >Republic are both members of the European Union, signatories to the >European Human Rights laws and are subject in a large measure to control >from Brussels, so it really makes very little difference who "governs" the >six counties. Rather than all these awkward cross-border co-operation >arrangements, why not make the six counties a direct protectorate of the >EU, attached to neither Great Britain (nearly wrote 'the UK' - whoops!) >nor the Irish Republic? For very good reasons why not, I suggest you read "A concise history of Ireland" by M and C C O'Brien. No matter what they do, the British cannot pull out of Northern Ireland without the probability of bloodshed increasing (this from a book written from the Irish perspective). Protectorates, although a nice idea, rarely work in practice anyway. An added level of pointlessness, BTW, can be shown in the perfectly harmonious way the protestant population integrates in the (Catholic) Republic. See >While I was browsing through for this, I came across some very odd >references which suggested to me that outsiders confuse the Brits with the >Irish Protestants. It's even more confusing than that. There have been periods of Irish history when the "Protestants" fighting to stay part of the U.K. were siding with the pope against the "Catholics" wanting independence. Probably as good a reason as any why the terms Loyalist and Republican are more apt. See the O'Brien book mentioned above. James (raised Protestant and born in England, of Irish Catholic ancestry) James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- You talk to me as if from a distance -.-=-.- And I reply with impressions chosen from another time =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:52:22 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: IRA On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > Come on, Stewart, you know what I meant, it's plain in black and > white. What I stated *is* official IRA doctrine. I have already said > they do not always follow it, and there are numerous rogue and > splinter groups. * The IRA is an amorphous and gun-oriented group, who are quite capable of saying anything to anybody if they think it will win them support. You have to believe what they do - the Birmingham pub bombing for example - rather than what they say. And may I remind you that even during the recent ceasefire they continued to kill and torture Catholics who they didn't like. In what sense is a teenage Catholic drug-dealer a legitimate military target? > There are numerous times the IRA has publicly announced that they see > military and police targets as acceptable in military terms. They > realize the *value* of this image, as it gives them a sense of > legitimacy which some terrorists groups lack. They consider themselves > an underground army, not a terrorist group. * Can you name one group of freedom fighters to who this does not apply? The whole game is to legitimise your side and dehumanise the people you plan to bump off. > But I do disagree with Mike Godwin -- there *is* a difference between > the stickies, provos, INLA and so on. * I thought the stickies were an anti-Turner Prize group. The only differences between the Irish Republican factions are the sort of differences that you get between Marxist dissidents and revolutionary groups generally - obscure doctrinal and personal issues. This was all dealt with perfectly well in 'Life of Brian'. > If you really want to understand the motivations and operations of a > group, you had best understand their self-image and internal politics. * Where did I see that observation on this list recently? What happened to 'motiveless madmen'? > While it may be tempting to tar them all with the same brush, that > serves emotion better than reason. Though I do understand -- and agree > -- that the real "hard men" will move from one faction to another, > whichever allows them to be the most violent. But that does not mean > you can safely disregard the politics of the individual groups -- the > Protestant ones, either, of course, who can be just as evil or > stubborn. * And without whom the 1912(?) Home Rule Bill would have gone through and we wouldn't be in this muddle today. The unspoken reality is that nobody _really_ wants Northern Ireland, they just like to argue about it. > I also can't adopt your belief that it doesn't matter who governs > Northern Ireland! Of course it matters, or there wouldn't be the > Troubles. Questions of freedom, religion, economic concerns, and > self-identity are paramount. It's a big mess, and frankly, I can > understand the concerns of both sides. * Of course it mattered in 1969 but it doesn't any more. At least, it matters in the sense that they need a democratic government rather than a dictatorship or an oligarchy. But both parts of Ireland have democratic government already, and in both cases domestic law is now subordinate to European law - and democracy is a effectively underpinned by EU membership. * So even if Irish people think it still matters who governs them directly, the truth is that it doesn't. _If_ the IRA really know what their political objective is, then it's for some form of military rule under the guise of a 'socialist republic'. I'm sure that they are not interested in simply extending the aegis of the Dail to an extra six counties, with guarantees of equal religious treatment for minorities. They might as well go and live in Belgium! - - MRG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:55:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Security On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > At the very > least, there should be a rule that at the first sign of trouble the pilots > must shut their door and not open it for ANY reason, including hearing > people being tortured to death in the passenger cabin. Even better, now that I think about it: there could be a panic button in the cockpit that, when hit, shuts the cabin door and locks it *irreversibly*, so that you'd need an arc welder and a Sawzall to get it open again. That way, they pilots couldn't open the door again even if they wanted to, no matter how much the hijackers threaten or kill the passengers. Of course I'm just thinking about such technical details to distract myself from other, grimmer thoughts. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:32:04 -0700 (PDT) From: Subject: Re: Security > On Wed, 12 Sep 2001, Capuchin wrote: > >> My trumpet instructor had the best suggestion and I was as shocked as >> he was that it hadn't yet been suggested: Secure the cockpit. Lock >> it down and don't let anybody in or out. Duh. It's a small measure >> that could really help save lives. > We were talking about this at the office yesterday. Someone suggested completely sealing off the cockpit and providing a video feed into it from the cabin. If the captain determines there's a life threatening situation, he presses a button that releases knock out gas into the cabin. Probably not feasible, but interesting. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:41:37 -0500 From: "Sweet & Tender Hooligan" Subject: Re: Security > We were talking about this at the office yesterday. > Someone suggested completely sealing off the cockpit > and providing a video feed into it from the cabin. > If the captain determines there's a life threatening > situation, he presses a button that releases knock > out gas into the cabin. Probably not feasible, but > interesting. Why not? This is the best fuckin' idea I've heard yet. Combine this with the two-separate-entrances idea and the no-carry-on-baggage idea and I'd say that we've got the problem well in hand. And, as long as this is all made public knowledge, nobody can complain about their rights being violated. They agree to these conditions when they buy the ticket. s&th cirhsein@yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:48:15 -0700 (PDT) From: Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones >>On Thu, Sep 13, 2001, lj wrote: > I, too, have been up on the observation deck a couple of times. I > have also eaten at the restaurant, Windows on the World, which was a > very swanky restaurant in the top (119th floor, I think-?). There was > also a wonderful bar/nightclub on the same floor there called "The > Greatest Bar on Earth". It was a really beautiful bar, very large and > modern, and there was always live music. It was one of my favorite > places to go, especially when we had people in from out of town. We > all went there one night and went swing dancing even! And now it's > TOTALLY GONE. Not just the bar, but the entire building. Yes, dinner at Windows On The World was a wonderful experience that my wife and I shared about ten years ago. The view at night was absolutely amazing. you didn't know what exactly you were looking at, but you could see lights for tens of miles. Another thing I'll always remember is the elevator ride. That elevator was so fast that I would suspect little children could elevate off the floor as it descended. It's remarkable that the Empire State Building is once again the tallest structure in New York City, and will be for quite a while. - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:53:27 -0400 From: strange little woj Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones when we last left our heroes, lj lindhurst (ljl@w-rabbit.com) exclaimed: >I, too, have been up on the observation deck a couple of times. i've only been up there once, while taking some friends from denmark around the city. i wish i had taken some photographs since the view was mindboggling. i remember being able to trace the nj transit rail routes practically out to morris county, where i was living at the time. totally astounding. woj ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 08:53:56 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Swedene Subject: Canada ? Here's something that will soon be circulated En Mass to everyone. So I figured I'd jump the gun and get you all started on it. It is from a radio broadcast of Gordon Sinclair (A Canadian) from about 1973: enjoy (or not) Herbie ************** "Americans" by Gordon Sinclair (circa 1973) The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French, and British exchanges this morning hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it's time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possible the least appreciated people in all the earth. As long as 60 years ago when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did. They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges, and the Niger. Today the rich bottom land of the Mississippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. none of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States. When the Franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and the reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris.....I was there.....I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquake, it's the United States that hurries in to help. Managua, Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, fifty-nine American communities have been flattened by tornadoes.......nobody has helped. The Marshall Plan, the Truman Policy, all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent, war-mongering Americans. I'd like to see just one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes. Come on let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed TriStar, or the Douglass 10? If so, why don't they fly them. Why do all international lines except Russian fly American planes. Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or woman on the moon? You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you will find men on the moon...not once, but several times, and safely home again. you talk about scandals and the Americans put their's's right in the store window for everybody to look at. Even the draft-dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets most of them, unless they break Canadian laws, and getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here. When the Americans get out of this bind (as they will) who could blame them if they said "the hell with the rest of the world....let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes." When the railways of France, Germany, and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name you five thousand times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble. Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Fransisco earthquake. Our neighbors have faced it alone and I'm one Canadian who's damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will some out of this thing with their flag high and when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present trouble. I hope Canada is not one of them, but there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians and finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48 annual meeting in New Orleans, that it was broke. This years disasters have taken it all and nobody, but nobody has helped. __________________________________________________ Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help? Donate cash, emergency relief information http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/ ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #344 ********************************