From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #345 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 345 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Sinclair tribute resurfaces ["Poole, R. Edward" ] Re: Sinclair tribute resurfaces [Christopher Gross ] Re: Security [Capuchin ] Re: Security [Capuchin ] Re: Security [Capuchin ] Re: Security [Capuchin ] RE: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 [Capuchin ] airplane modification [dmw ] Re: Security [Christopher Gross ] RE: Security ["Poole, R. Edward" ] what else? [Eb ] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [strange little woj ] Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones [lj lindhurst ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:16:04 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: Sinclair tribute resurfaces I don't know about the rest of you, but I've started to get emails containing slightly-altered version's of Gordon Sinclair's 1973 "The Americans" broadcast, with intros suggesting that it was written in the wake of the September 11 tragedy. Of course, it wasn't, and Sinclair died 15 years ago (or more). However, the *actual* text still applies quite well to current events (though the bit about American airplanes is uncomfortably ironic in this context), and is worthwhile reading for Jeme and his like-minded cronies who see nothing but evil in America (OK, that's not fair - -- he just sees nothing worth talking about that is worthwhile in America, right?) Anyway, here it is, along with my response to an earlier "modified" version of the text that was forwarded to me. - -----Original Message----- From: Poole, R. Edward Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2001 11:49 AM To: Lowther, Frederick Subject: RE: Tribute It is interesting that this speech, first given as a radio address in 1973 by the late Canadian radio broadcaster Gordon Sinclair, should surface in the wake of Tuesday's events. Certainly the sentiment applies strongly to recent events, but it was intended to respond to criticism of the U.S. shortly after we pulled out of Viet Nam. After "bootlegged" copies of the speech were circulated in the U.S., Sinclair recorded a version for commercial release (backed by "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"), which sold several hundred thousand copies -- all royalties were donated to the American Red Cross. The full text is reproduced below, in case you are interested. - -ed "LET'S BE PERSONAL" Broadcast June 5, 1973 CFRB, Toronto, Ontario Topic: "The Americans" 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 is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth. As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtze. 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 their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it. When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 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 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 Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women 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 find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are 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 buy the Israel bonds, 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 to you 5,000 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 Francisco earthquake. Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come 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 troubles. I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke. This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over... has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped. ORIGINAL SCRIPT AND AUDIO COURTESY STANDARD BROADCASTING CORPORATION LTD. (c) 1973 BY GORDON SINCLAIR PUBLISHED BY STAR QUALITY MUSIC (SOCAN) A DIVISION OF UNIDISC MUSIC INC. 578 HYMUS BOULEVARD POINTE-CLAIRE, QUEBEC, CANADA, H9R 4T2 ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 12:27:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Sinclair tribute resurfaces On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Poole, R. Edward wrote: > ... and is worthwhile reading for Jeme and his > like-minded cronies who see nothing but evil in America (OK, that's not fair > -- he just sees nothing worth talking about that is worthwhile in America, > right?) Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they can't stand hearing anyone besides the US government and corporations get criticized or denounced. All anger must be directed toward the US instead of being wasted on mere terrorists, in their view. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:32:41 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: my cat won't eat his own food anymore >From: Michael Wolfe >I would see a movement to bring a conscience to US policy as >another possibility for a very constructive reaction. It would >both be a positive, in and of itself, and might have the benefit >that it *does* help prevent something like this from happening >again. It certainly would have the virtue of never having been >tried. (Well, aside from Woodrow Wilson, bless his patriarchal, >imperialist heart.) I was thinking about this yesterday, trying to figure out what would work. I don't think this would be a good reaction in itself simply because the message would be: murdering American citizens en masse is an effective way to get America to change its foreign policy for the better. It's nice to think that terrorists would look on such a change and think, "well, how nice, America has decided to be nice after all! Perhaps we'll all take a cup of tea together now." But I'm pessimistic about human nature when it involves group boundaries, and I really wouldn't expect this result. The only thing I can see is this: we have to know what the terrorists were after. We have to know what they care about and where their homeland is, what their specific issues are, if there are any. And we have to present them with a choice: You can keep attacking us, and we can level your cities, exterminate your people, contaminate your homelands. Or we can discuss your grievances with us and work together to put things right. That sounds hideously naive and ridiculous when I write it out. But the core idea is: we have to demonstrate that terrorism will change our foreign policy for the worse, and (this is the part that will require us to change) we have to give an appropriate road to changing our foreign policy for the better. In its simplest terms: punish bad behavior. Reward good behavior with good behavior of our own. I don't see how anything else can be effective, most especially including what will only be seen as appeasement. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 10:59:06 -0700 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: defense in the air >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. Apart from the air pressure issue, you also restrict the ability of flight attendants or anyone in the cabin from helping if something were to happen to one of the flight crew (e.g., heart attack). And while the pilots could still probably refuse to fly the plane into buildings, knowing that terrorists have taken the cabin and are threatening to kill passengers one by one if the flight crew refuse to surrender or follow instructions would be pretty influential. As for the issue of unarmed combat: yes, of course it's possible for a highly trained martial artist to be pretty deadly unarmed. However, I do think it's much harder for a team of unarmed hijackers to control passengers from a distance than it is for armed hijackers to do so. Also, the restricted space inside a plane's cabin makes it more difficult (though not impossible -- there are specific techniques designed specifically for confined spaces even in aikido) to be deadly with one's hands and feet to multiple opponents. Drew - -- Andrew D. Simchik, drew at stormgreen dot com http://www.stormgreen.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:05:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Security On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, The Great Quail wrote: > Capuchin writes, > >Anything is a weapon if you hold it right. This part I absolutely meant. You're NEVER going to to make it IMPOSSIBLE to get a weapon on board. I think that all we need to do is expand our list of weapons not allowed a little bit. I don't think a total ban on carry-on luggage is going to have any real effect. If you can put it in a bag, you can put it on your person. Short of a strip-search and flying naked, you're not going to stop a desperate person from using SOMETHING as a weapon... and it can be effective. > >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. That part was a joke. Not a ha-ha, let's laugh at the situation joke... but a joke nonetheless. > 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. Hell, I could make a ceramic blade the size of a credit card (bigger, sharper, and more durable than the box knives used her) and a handle from a specially machined keychain dongle and I'm in... just with my wallet and keys. And, of course, you're neglecting TRAINING. Three powerful men that were highly trained killers without remorse or fear of pain are more dangerous UNARMED than a couple of scared teenagers with a pipe bomb. I'm not talking about people waking up one day and deciding "I'm gonna hijack me a plane". I'm talking about people who have a goal and time to plan and gather resources. You cannot stop those people from getting weapons on board. > Personally, Jeme, I think it's high time that you shut the fuck up. Quail, I've thought the same about your jingoistic, everything-is-beautiful tripe for some time. But there's such a thing as respect. A healthy democracy REQUIRES myriad, diverse opinions. So, if you think it's time I shut up, then it's just time for you to put your head in the sand and stop reading what I write. As for me, I'm not going to tell you to shut up and I'll continue reading everything I possibly can. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:16:34 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Security On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Sweet & Tender Hooligan wrote: > > 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. I'll have to agree... for the most part. It IS a very good idea that makes a whole lot of sense. But I don't think two-separate-entrances is really much more effective than a policy against openning the door and the panic button suggestion. A ban on carry-on baggage is just needless inconvenience. I don't think there would be a real advantage... that is to say, I don't think it would actually slow anybody down. The X-rays, random bag checks, and metal detectors would be effective enough for that purpose so long as they were a bit more careful about what they allowed and didn't. I suggested a deposit box (like they have a the courthouses here in Portland) where anything that isn't acceptable is placed. The box could go in the cargo area and you could retreive your stuff when you arrived. Sort of a secure carry-on and only used for objectionable items like pocket knives and things that are disallowed, but could easily be considered an "oversight" on the part of the passenger. > And, as long as this is all made public knowledge, nobody can complain > about their rights being violated. This is probably a semantic niggle and I apologize if it's not what you meant, but I hope to make myself clear: This is a bit like developing a product that you KNOW causes cancer, but having a disclaimer so nobody can sue or bring criminal charges against you. How about NOT causing cancer? I mean, rather than building a system where nobody CAN complain that their rights are being violated, we build a system where nobody WANTS TO complain that their rights are being violated because we are treating people with respect. I'm sure that's what you meant because nothing you've suggested involves an increase in violation of privacy or personal expression or freedom. > They agree to these conditions when they buy the ticket. Well, except for the ban on carry-on luggage, I don't think there's anything that really REQUIRES agreement... of course, they'd have to know what kind of gas is used on the plane and those who are at risk for serious medical side-effects will be unable to fly completely. I'm not saying that's a show stopper, but we should be aware of it. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:21:05 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Security On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Maximilian Lang wrote: > > Secure the cockpit. > > 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? I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the measure. This ONLY prevents people from steering a plane into a building or something. It DOES NOT prevent someone from hijacking a plane to another airport or something like that. I would encourage any pilot to hear the demands of the hijackers and make sensible decisions. I'm not talking "Zero Tolerance" where the pilot just lands the plane wherever he likes as soon as a threat is made. I'm talking about doing as the hijacker demands insofar as it saves lives, but not allowing them to use the plane for a purpose that would probably kill everyone on board anyway. If a hijacker shouted from the cabin, "I'm going to kill a passenger every ten seconds until you crash into that building," a pilot should ignore the hijacker because every passenger is going to die if he DOES comply. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:25:40 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: Re: Security On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Christopher Gross wrote: > Of course I'm just thinking about such technical details to distract > myself from other, grimmer thoughts. I'm absolutely positive that's the motivation we ALL share for this thread. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 11:31:31 -0700 (PDT) From: Capuchin Subject: RE: fegmaniax-digest V10 #342 On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Bachman, Michael wrote: > 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. How on Earth did they take a vote? I mean, how could someone call for a vote without getting attacked? That was a brave person, there... well, those that fought back were all very brave. > 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. RIGHT! Now, that's key, here. This card has been played. We've been told for YEARS to just go along with the agressors and nobody will get hurt. Give them what they want and you'll probably live. But if what they want is to fly your plane into a building, you're not going to live... so the gut instinct to fight back is RIGHT in those cases. And any future hijacker that would use a passenger plane as a missile is going to have to come up with a new way to deal with the passengers. My FIRST thought when I heard that the people were on board the planes (well, right after the horror and revulsion I felt when I saw the inside of the cabin at impact in my mind) was that they MUST have been dead already. I just couldn't imagine people sitting back while it happened. But then I realized that it's never been done before and so they didn't really understand that it COULD happen... that the attackers would be SUICIDAL and not just be using them as hostages. Well, we've all learned now and it's a different world. As you can see, it took less than two hours for that change to effect the world. I really believe the people of Flight 93 wouldn't have actively revolted had they not known about the other planes. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:00:30 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: airplane modification i've been involved in the development of aviation-related training materials for over ten years, including safety and emergency-response curricula for flight attendants and training programs for fire-fighters and other ground-based rescue personnel. i may have some uninformed opinions, but i think this opinion is pretty informed: i do not believe that 'hardened' cockpits could be built into any existing commercial airliners. they could only go into the next phase of commercial airliner design. without violating any confidentiality agreements, i think i can say that to the best of my knowledge, while flight crews are trained in many more things than you probably think -- when westerberg sang 'you ain't nothing but a waitress in the sky' he had *no* idea -- unarmed combat per se isn't a standard part of the curricula. although, i should probably shut up, because reading people suggest well-intentioned, no matter how impractical, design modifications is preferable to listening to a bunch of people who i basically like impugn each other's intelligence and reasoning ability, and generally increase the amount of angst, discomfort and unpleasantness in the world. dejectedly, - -- d. - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:09:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: Security On Thu, 13 Sep 2001, Capuchin wrote: > > Personally, Jeme, I think it's high time that you shut the fuck up. > > Quail, I've thought the same about your jingoistic, > everything-is-beautiful tripe for some time. > > But there's such a thing as respect. [etc.] Of course the Quail is an emotional guy, always speaking his mind and not always as tactful as he could be. But you, Jeme, seem to have no understanding of just how ANNOYING you can be, and have been, on this list. For every person who bursts out "shut the fuck up," there are probably ten who are thinking it, and dozens more who have started deleting anything with your name on it that appears in their inboxes. You really seem to have no realization of how you sound to other people online. (You also have a spotty record for showing your oppenents respect, since you mention it.) And maybe you're happy that way; I don't know. By the way, I invite you to grep through the list archives and come up anything written by the Quail that could reasonably be called "jingoistic, everything-is-beautiful tripe," or even non-tripe. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 15:11:20 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: Security the ever astute Jeme declares: >If a hijacker shouted from the cabin, "I'm going to kill a passenger every >ten seconds until you crash into that building," a pilot should ignore the >hijacker because every passenger is going to die if he DOES comply. Yeah, no kidding. I think Max was talking about the slightly more difficult question of a hijacker demanding access to the cabin -- or control of the plane, if trained as a pilot (as the 9/11 hijackers apparently were) -- and threatening to kill the passengers if the pilot does not comply. In such a case, the pilot does not know the hijackers' intentions -- and before this week, intentionally flying into a building probably wouldn't have been the first guess. Hostage taking, diverting the plane to a different country, demands for the release of "political prisoners" & etc would be more likely in the front of the pilot's mind. Once it is clear that NOTHING the pilot does (or the crew or the passengers, for that matter) will save the lives of anyone onboard (as in your simplistic example and also, apparently, in the case of the Pennsylvania crash), THEN the pilot would be correct to refuse access/control, even in light of threats to the lives of the passengers. Also, I'm surprised that you would find additional searches of passengers and their luggage to be greater intrusions on personal liberties / rights of privacy, than the possibly release of anesthetic gas into the plane's cabin! Although I'm interested that idea, it sure sounds a hell of a lot more intrusive than bag searches and metal detectors. Sounds like more of a medical procedure -- requiring informed consent -- than it sounds like a 4th amendment search & seizure question. J. - -- _______________________________________________ Capuchin capuchin@bitmine.net Jeme A Brelin ============================================================================This e-mail message and any attached files are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) named above. This communication may contain material protected by attorney-client, work product, or other privileges. If you are not the intended recipient or person responsible for delivering this confidential communication to the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, copying, or other distribution of this e-mail message and any attached files is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential communication in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail message and permanently delete the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, send an email to postmaster@dsmo.com Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP http://www.legalinnovators.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:29:35 -0700 From: Eb Subject: what else? > 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. Casual note for the media-conspiracy-minded: I saw a White House press conference today (damn, I can't remember which person was speaking), and a reporter asked a question about rumors that one of our own F-16's shot down Flight 93. The broadcast immediately cut back to the anchor desk, without showing the speaker's answer! Over a decade ago when I was in New York, I walked over to the adjacent WTC, tentatively intending to take the elevator to the top with the other tourists. The long line discouraged me, and I blew it off. I didn't expect the towers themselves would get blown off, before I had another chance to do so. Eb, who will curious to see what Amtrak stock does, when the market reopens ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:34:13 -0400 From: strange little woj Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones when we last left our heroes, Ken Weingold (hazmat@hellrot.org) exclaimed: >On Thu, Sep 13, 2001, strange little woj wrote: >> >Dork. ;-) >> >> fuck you, ken weigold! ;) > >Fuck ME?!? Fuck YOU, you fucking fuck! ;-) guess that makes you a full-fledged feg now. congratulations on passing the secret initiation test! +w ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 16:45:49 -0400 From: lj lindhurst Subject: Re: more WTC pictures - peaceful ones >when we last left our heroes, Ken Weingold (hazmat@hellrot.org) exclaimed: > >>On Thu, Sep 13, 2001, strange little woj wrote: >>> >Dork. ;-) >>> >>> fuck you, ken weigold! ;) >> >>Fuck ME?!? Fuck YOU, you fucking fuck! ;-) > >guess that makes you a full-fledged feg now. congratulations on >passing the secret initiation test! > >+w No he already did that when he had sex with Bayard! ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #345 ********************************