From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #349 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Friday, September 14 2001 Volume 10 : Number 349 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: militarization takes coordination [dmw ] RE: hmm... [Michael R Godwin ] Re: militarization takes coordination [Christopher Gross ] RE: Another long rant. ["Poole, R. Edward" ] RE: militarization takes coordination [Ken Ostrander ] RE: militarization takes coordination [Christopher Gross ] that "yay america" piece [Aaron Mandel ] flame #1 ["Walker, Charles" ] RE: militarization takes coordination ["Mike Wells" Subject: Re: militarization takes coordination On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > - the fact that we had known about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it > happened, and that it was allowed to take place in order to get us into > the war (before my friend told me this last night I really had not been > aware of it -- I have no idea how true it is, but if so...) i would say that this is a credible hypothesis, but far from an accepted fact. the most detailed anaylysis i've read of path of communications about the attack (in Herbert Yardley's _The American Black Chamber_, a must-read for anyone with an interest in intelligence operations and applied cryptology) suggests strongly that US unpreparedness was merely a mixture of questionable competence and plain ol' bad luck. was Yardley laughing up his sleeve as he wrote that? maybe. i don't see any way that the question could be definitely settled at this point. i'm a look-at-all-sides kind of guy, so the notion that a radical splinter group within some special forces division would have the know-how, technical capability, and, possibly, motivation, to execute such an operation occurred to me early. but to accept it as a LIKELY scenario would seem to require some awfully compelling evidence. given that considerable evidence does seem to be amassing in favor of OTHER scenarios, i'm inclined to dismiss it almost entirely at this point. (& to suggest that everyone involved in the process through which evidence is acquired and released to the media could be PART of such a conspiracy seems absolutely paranoiac to me -- hell, we can't even get military and elected officials to keep their mouths shut about military operations being planned -- i think the likelihood that someone will spill the beans increases almost exponentially as the number of conspirators rises.) - -- d. np scott miller _thus always to tyrants_ - ------------------------------------------------- Mayo-Wells Media Workshop dmw@ http://www.mwmw.com mwmw.com Web Development * Multimedia Consulting * Hosting ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 16:54:59 +0100 (BST) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: RE: hmm... Someone (not sure who) said: > >Go ahead and unsubscribe then! With reference to recent discussions: could we have a listmeister's ruling here, please, woj? I know this is a wide-ranging group and I have been known to drift off-topic myself, but another list that I am on (London and North Eastern Railway e-group) has banned all off-topic 'political' posts until the heat dies down. I would hate to see Hitchcock fans leaving the list - or being urged to leave the list - for non-Hitchcock reasons. - - Mike Godwin ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 11:57:22 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: militarization takes coordination On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > This possibility seemed ridiculously far-fetched and improbable to me up > until yesterday, Oh, not you too, Drew.... > when we began talking about the following: None of the following is especially surprising, and none would pass Occam's test. For example: > - the use of old footage of Palestinians cheering to make it seem like they > were glorying over our losses What old footage? I saw footage taken Tuesday. (The Palestinian Authority was embarrassed enough to say that they "couldn't guarantee the cameraman's safety" if the worst footage, showing PA troops celebrating, was aired.) These celebrations were confirmed by other eyewitnesses (not all of whom were Americans). And if there was some big conspiracy to whip up hatred, wouldn't they be smart enough to have their fake footage show our likely targets, eg Taliban members, instead of Palestinians? > - the fact that we had known about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it > happened, and that it was allowed to take place in order to get us into > the war (before my friend told me this last night I really had not been > aware of it -- I have no idea how true it is, but if so...) I can answer that: it's not true. The best-known argument for the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory is a book by a right-wing amateur historian named Stinnet, "Day of Deceit," published in 1999 I think. Historians have debunked this book to hell and back. Much of it is logically invalid leaps from slight circumstantial evidence; and when he did offer real evidence, people who have checked up on his citations have found that he either mischaracterized what this evidence says, or in numerous cases the sources he cited did not exist at all! I'm sure Stinnet doesn't care though; he knows the refutation never catches up with with the original accusation, and his goal (to blacken FDR's name, thus helping right-wing attacks on the welfare state and liberalism) will be served. > - the fact that no one has come forward to claim responsibility for the > attacks without later denying it Eh? Is it so unlikely that the ones who perpetrated it would just keep quiet? And why wouldn't the big evil conspiracy just manufacture a claim of responsibility with their chosen target's name on it? > - the convenience with which we've found Arabs with flight training manuals > and the like Is it really so surprising that men on a suicide mission might leave behind one or two bits of evidence, or that with approximately ten billion cops pouring over the airports from which those planes left, the evidence might be found quickly? Isn't it reasonable that the suicide pilots would want to brush up on their planes one last time before taking off? And how many major crimes are committed without leaving any evidence? > - the fact that we trained bin Laden ourselves and used to use him to do our > dirty work We helped him (and hundreds of thousands of other people) fight the Soviets twenty years ago. Does that mean he's still on our payroll? > - the fact that the wing of the Pentagon that was destroyed was being > renovated (true?) It is true. What does that prove? > I don't really know what to think now. Well, if you don't know what to think, don't start thinking the worst. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 10:11:55 -0600 From: HAL Subject: hey rube >"This is going to be a very expensive war, and Victory is not guaranteed -- >for anyone, and certainly not for anyone as baffled as George W. Bush. All >he knows is that his father started the war a long time ago, and that he, >the goofy child-President, has been chosen by Fate and the global Oil >industry to finish it Now. He will declare a National Security Emergency and >clamp down Hard on Everybody, no matter where they live or why. If the >guilty won't hold up their hands and confess, he and the Generals will >ferret them out by force."-- Hunter S. Thompson >http://espn.go.com/page2/s/thompson/010912.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:21:10 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: Another long rant. James: >hm. I write a scathing reply to something pro-American and I don't get >flamed. In fact, most of the list's comments seem to support the same views >as me to some extent or another. I know that this list is hardly your >typical cross-section of the US, but that is intriguing nonetheless. I, for one, am trying to keep down the flame-wars, seeing no point to them. Your reply to the Sinclair piece seemed to me not so much "a scathing reply," but a counter-balance to the (admittedly) one-sided view therein expressed. I have no problem with someone pointing out the America is not the *only* one who rushes to the aid of other countries in trouble. Nor do I object to your point that no one rushes to the US's aid because we don't ask for it. What I did not see you dispute (maybe I missed it), was Sinclair's point that everyone criticizes America for its mistakes, but no one praises them for their good deeds. That's the only point I was making in forwarding it in the first place. >Perhaps I'm terminally naive in the following, and I never thought I'd hear >myself say this, but one person who could seriously help the US right now >is Louis Farrakhan. If he spoke out, representing the US's Moslem >population, and said loud and clear for the world to hear that (as is true) >the killing of innocent people is a heinous sin against Allah, and whoever >did this will have to answer to His mightly vengeance, then it would >probably do as much good to the US as any number of bombing raids on the >Afghan desert. A good point. the majority of Muslims do not share the views of a few extremists, no more than the majority of Christians support the murder of doctors who perform abortions. I find it unlikely that Farrakhan would held out the current administration -- or that they would accept his help if proffered. However, American Muslim leaders will speak out in defense of American Muslims who unfairly have become the target of bigoted reprisals in the wake of Tuesday's attacks. Farrakhan-Bush? No stranger than Falwell-bin Laden, as Gross pointed out. R. Ed. P. states boldly: >>So, you are incensed that someone on a >>call-in show was shouted down for saying that the US brought this attack on >>itself, and you express hope that those with divergent views will be allowed >>to express their opinions, but you are "offended" and "pissed off" by the >>circulation of pro-American sentiment? >It's a free country, for now. You are free to make your comment. Similarly, >Jim is free to say he's offended by its sentiments. Right. I believe I made that point by saying "So be it -- you hold your opinions and I'll hold mine." I just find it ironic that he, who deplored the unwillingness to allow dissent in that call-in show would make such a big production number out of the "offense" he took at the Sinclair piece and his desire to unsubscribe from the list. Sounds like he isn't so willing to accept divergent opinions as he advertised. >>I, for one, have expressed my >>revulsion with the inappropriately-timed, and unfairly damning of the >>victims, expression of the "you got what was coming to you" viewpoints. So >>be it -- you hold your opinions and I'll hold mine. However, anyone who has >>the temerity to say anything pro-American is labeled a warmongering >>jingoist. >I don't remember anyone saying that. Jim didn't, and I didn't either, and >ours were the two main attacks on the article. Re-read recent posts by Jeme, Eddie Tews and Michael Wolfe. I wasn't referring to you or Jim. >>Whatever flaws this country has -- and there are many, as there is >>anywhere -- there is also generosity, compassion, respect for human rights, >>and civic virtue. >Hm. Is Mr Buckalew still on this list? ISTR he has first nation ancestry, >and could probably tell you a thing or two about your nation's respect for >their rights. Similarly, those countries that have been mentioned that were >wanting a particular type of ("un-American") government but were forced to >'mend their evil ways' by the US probably don't think much of that either. >Generosity, I'll grant you. And compassion, to a limited extent (how much >compassion is being shown to Middle Eastern nationals living in the US at >the moment? Do they feel it's safe for them to venture onto the streets?). >As to civic virtue, every country can claim that. And every oen of them >will have their own definition of what being virtuous means. Can you >honestly say that the US government feels more virtuous in their views that >the stringently moral Taleban do in theirs? You missed the point entirely. I *did not* say "America is the best, America can do no wrong!!!* (indeed, I freely admit the opposite). I made only the simple, and I thought non-controversial claim -- that America also has done a lot of good in the world, and within its own borders. I guess any praise for my country will raise the hackles of some. Sorry to hear you are one of them. >>While the US throws its weight around on the world stage >>to accomplish its own objectives (which, no doubt, you would deplore, and in >>some cases be right for doing so), it also uses its wealth, technology, and >>human resources to assist other nations and other people live a safer and >>freer life. >True. But the article you posted made it clear that the writer thought the >US was the only country to do that. It does so more than many, sure, >because it is richer. But many nations help out, even nations who are least >equipped to do so. A couple of weeks back there was a shipload of refugees >stranded off the coast of Australia. Who offered to help them? The rich, >powerful US? No. Struggling Nauru, population several families and a dog. >You might not hear about other countries being generous, compassionate and >virtuous, but many give far more in proportionate terms than the US does. >And if I remember the Biblical parable of the widow's mite, that is >supposed to be more improtant. And certainly more impotant than trumpeting >it for the world to hear. I disagree with your read of Sinclair's piece, but it comes across as it comes across. I read it to be a defense of America's good acts, in a time of unrelieved criticism of the US's bad acts (sounds like now to me, which is why I deemed it relevant). I don't think Sinclair -- or anyone else -- claims that the US is the only good actor in the world. And what does the refugees example prove? If the US doesn't help out in every instance, despite its wealth, it has committed some sin against the world? >>I'm no simple-minded, flag-waving, "love it or leave it"-type >>Patriot >and I'm no flag-burning anti-American. America is a great country. And this >last week it has suffered terribly. I support a lot of the things your >country does, and far more that it says it stands for. Glad to hear it. >But to claim that it >is somehow unique and is only ever a force for good in the world is a >mountainous pile of crap that not only not worthy of a leading world >nation, but is also insulting to many other countries. I never said that and, as I explained before, I don't think Sinclair did either. ============================================================================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: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:37:34 -0400 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: RE: militarization takes coordination >> the more i >> think about it, the more plausible it seems to me. "it" being that the >> events of tuesday morning could well have been initiated and/or >facilitated >> by the state department as a pretext for a.) massively increased military >> spending to jump-start the economy (after, what, seven fed reductions this >> year couldn't even cause a blip), and b.) a big-assed crackdown on civil >> liberties to cut the legs out from under the burgeoning anti-globalisation >> movement (which had already planned large actions for both this month and >> next in d.c., and which will now probably both be scrapped -- for >starters). > >I have no doubt that this attack will be "used" to whip up public sentiment >for massive military force to be used against America's enemies. I also >have little doubt that Americans, on the whole, need a lot of "whipping up" >at this point. Moreover, it is the perpetrators -- not the victims or their >government -- that will be responsible for America's reaction. i had this thought immediately when i first heard about the crashes tuesday morning. i even had a little debate with someone about it while i was trying to get signatures from voters (there weren't many, by the way) to get a question on the ballot. pearl harbor worked like a charm; and it seems that the world trade center incident will have similar potential. already the flags are everywhere and there are numerous vigils for solidarity. i don't have anything against either of these things; but they remind me of the gulf war and the yellow ribbons everywhere. when i see a flag at half-mast, i feel regret for those people who died; but when i see someone toting a flag or wearing a red, white & blue pin, it just seems so superficial to me. hell, as long as terrorists wear the colors, they should be able to get anywhere. protests planned for clean elections this weekend in boston and against the imf and world bank later this month in d.c. have been postponed or cancelled, along with a lot of other things. when does it become alright to resume criticisms of our government? i'm sorry; but all of the flak that jeme received on this list was uncalled for. unfortunately, it's a microcosm example of what is going on all over this country. people should be upset about this tragedy; but they should also be able to think critically. i am an american, living in america, recognizing that we have more freedoms than many; but that we also have a great responsibility to the rest of the people in the world that are oppressed. i really hope that this incident will end the decadence and start a new era of activism. there are a lot of problems that are more likely going to be swept under the carpet. this incident will undoubtedly usher in even more money for the military industrial complex for useless stealth bombers and missle defense at the expense of a host of other needs. this is simply wrong. __________________/%%*%%*%%*%%*%%*%%*%\__________________ //~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ N\ N ___ I ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~\\ I: ,,,.. | N \ N (__ I O f f i c i a l :I I: .;ll''``':. | N \N ___) L___ Net Surfer's License :I I: i' _ \\\|<-><-><-><-><-> Exp. 8/10 <-><-><-><->:I I: o C 'O `-- )\`| :I I:ooloo \ L ,/ |Name : ken ostrander,jr. :I I:\___/ \`-U-'/ |Email: kenster@mit.edu :I I:_l_l_ ===== |Occupation: middlemanagementkissass :I I:lvvvl__/|||||\____|Hair:mid length brown; Eyes: blue :I I:lvvvl~~\|||||/~~~~|Appearance: trying not to be seen :I I:lvvvl~~~\|||/~~~~~|Location: massachusetts :I I:==================|Talker: tikilounge.org :I I: Cette documente est aussi disposeable en francaise :I *___________________________________________________________* \%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%/ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:47:55 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: RE: militarization takes coordination On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Ken Ostrander wrote: > i'm sorry; but all of the flak that jeme received on this > list was uncalled for. Is it so hard to understand how Jeme's words angered some people? I think you may be blinded to his *tone* by your agreement with his *claims*. And frankly, Jeme shoots as much flak as he takes. > unfortunately, it's a microcosm example of what is going on all over > this country. people should be upset about this tragedy; but they > should also be able to think critically. Yes, people should be able to think critically about EVERYTHING ... including flimsy arguments from the left. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:49:57 -0400 From: "Poole, R. Edward" Subject: RE: militarization takes coordination Ken: >i'm sorry; but all of the flak that jeme received on this >list was uncalled for. unfortunately, it's a microcosm example of what is >going on all over this country. people should be upset about this tragedy; but >they should also be able to think critically. i am an american, living in >america, recognizing that we have more freedoms than many; but that we also >have a great responsibility to the rest of the people in the world that are >oppressed. i really hope that this incident will end the decadence and start a >new era of activism. there are a lot of problems that are more likely going to >be swept under the carpet. this incident will undoubtedly usher in even more >money for the military industrial complex for useless stealth bombers and >missle defense at the expense of a host of other needs. this is simply wrong. I think it is wrong to equate criticism of Jeme's posts with pro-military, non-critical thinking. (knee-jerk pro-government and pro-military sentiments may be occurring in the US, but I don't see evidence of it on this list). I do not fall into either of those categories, but I was outraged by Jeme's posts. I trust we will be able to find common ground in working for the betterment of our society and those outside our borders, but, for now, I will continue to be repulsed by statements that, to me, blame the victims for the atrocious acts of 9/11/01. Moreover, I haven't read anything posted by those who objected to Jeme that I find to be lacking in critical thinking (indeed, Chris Gross, for one, seems to be thinking a lot more critically than Jeme and Eddie Tews, who automatically ascribe all blame to the US Government that they hate so passionately). Hopefully, we can all ratchet down the rhetoric a bit, treat each other with respect, get away from name calling, and learn to accept each others' opinions with grace. I fear this will be very difficult if criticism of the US predominates the discussion while the victims' bodies are still being unearthed. ============================================================================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: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:32:39 -0400 (EDT) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: militarization takes coordination On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, dmw wrote: > i would say that this is a credible hypothesis, but far from an accepted > fact. the most detailed anaylysis i've read of path of communications > about the attack (in Herbert Yardley's _The American Black Chamber_, a > must-read for anyone with an interest in intelligence operations and > applied cryptology) suggests strongly that US unpreparedness was merely a > mixture of questionable competence and plain ol' bad luck. was Yardley > laughing up his sleeve as he wrote that? maybe. i don't see any way that > the question could be definitely settled at this point. Well, like you say in reference to the larger point, it isn't something that should be believed without a lot of real evidence. And Stinnet or whatever his name is has signally failed to provide such evidence. What IS true is that FDR knew Japan would probably attack us eventually if we kept undermining their aggression in China; and that tensions were reaching a head in late November/early December. So in THAT sense he knew an attack would come, sometime, somewhere. However, there is no evidence that he know about the Pearl Harbor attack. There IS evidence that insofar as the US expected an attack it all, they expected it to be in the Philippines and/or Guam; and that they were convinced Japan would declare war before actually attacking. When the attack came in Hawaii, and (due to a Japanese communications screwup) before an open declaration of war, the government was genuinely surprised. Two fundamental logical problems with the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory: First, there was no need for it. If FDR really knew about the attack, he could have warned Pearl Harbor in time to defend itself; the result would still have been more than enough to get the public behind the war effort, while at the same time it might have saved a few more battleships and sailors to use IN that war. And second, it would only have gotten FDR half the war he "wanted": he had no way of knowing that Germany would come to Japan's aid and declare war on the US (they were not required to do so under terms of their treaty with Japan). > (& to suggest that everyone involved in the process through which evidence > is acquired and released to the media could be PART of such a conspiracy > seems absolutely paranoiac to me -- hell, we can't even get military and > elected officials to keep their mouths shut about military operations > being planned -- i think the likelihood that someone will spill the beans > increases almost exponentially as the number of conspirators rises.) Good point. I wish my earlier hasty rebuttal had been as logical and clearly expressed as this. - --Chris ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:51:13 -0700 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: agenda chas in LA writes: jerry falwell has made statements saying that the reason nyc was targeted was because it is the home to pagans and sexual deviants. some guys just cant give things [and their agendas] a rest. makes me sad to hear this already. i just thought last night that it was so good not hear from the gloom and doom end of the world loonies, but i suppose that they are getting geared up at last. boo!! http://www.theweeklywalker.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:56:11 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: that "yay america" piece Maybe I got some bad information, but I was under the impression that article about how much good America does was originally written in the 70s by a Canadian with gently sarcastic intent. No? I'd written it off as another "everybody's got to wear sunscreen". aaron ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:57:02 -0700 From: "Walker, Charles" Subject: flame #1 i suppose i'm going to get flamed to kingdom come for this. but the more i think about it, the more plausible it seems to me. "it" being that the events of tuesday morning could well have been initiated and/or facilitated by the state department as a pretext for a.) massively increased military spending to jump-start the economy (after, what, seven fed reductions this year couldn't even cause a blip), and b.) a big-assed crackdown on civil liberties to cut the legs out from under the burgeoning anti-globalisation movement (which had already planned large actions for both this month and next in d.c., and which will now probably both be scrapped -- for starters). chas in LA replies: i normally keep my politics to myself, as they tend to morph [i am a situationalist of some sort] but this is flat out wrong. the events of tuesday are more likely to send us deeper into recession [possible true depression] than jumpstart anything. the airlines themselves are more than like going to need a gov't bailout just to stay afloat as they tend to operate on a day to day cash and carry basis. these conspiracy thoughts really disturb me, esp right now. i tend to believe that there is LESS going on than we think. http://www.theweeklywalker.com ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 12:01:50 -0500 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: RE: militarization takes coordination James writes: > and I'm no flag-burning anti-American. America is a great country. And this > last week it has suffered terribly. I support a lot of the things your > country does, and far more that it says it stands for. But to claim that it > is somehow unique and is only ever a force for good in the world is a > mountainous pile of crap that not only not worthy of a leading world > nation, but is also insulting to many other countries. This was not claimed. By my reading Ed's theme was that while there are plenty of things to be upset, angry and paranoid about that our government does, "warts-and-all" it's still the best place by miles. And I agree with him 100%. And Andrew, I think you were reaching a bit there. Between the horrific nature of what happened itself and the gut-wrenching stories now coming out (what happened on the planes, in the buildings, etc), it's been hard for me to find any stable, emotionally balanced ground. My dad was on business in Manhattan on Tuesday morning. He was a good number of blocks away, I guess, and was able to get a call out after the first plane went in, but we didn't hear from him for quite a while after that. They way I see it, THEY TRIED TO KILL MY DAD, and I'm not really very happy about it. Fortunately he got back home yesterday, having found a car up in Stamford and driven through the night with a couple others he was travelling with. A long, strange trip indeed. I'm finally getting around to sorting email, and it's especially appalling to read the alarmist military-industrial conspiracy chest-thumping "I told you so" that looks to have been going on since Tuesday. Whether true or not, in my book it offers little in the way of support to those of us who were (are) in some degree of emotional turmoil and uncertainty as this unfolded. I can't imaging having been directly in the middle of all this, as several fegs seem to have been, and then having to read that crap when I got home. I pulled into the driveway Tuesday night after watching the shit go down on TV and listening to the radio at work. My son Matt ran out our screen door yelling "Daddy! Daddy! Daddy! Pway goff? Pway golf?" with this million-megawatt smile on his face...and his sister Annie wanted "come play sand with me, Daddy?". I just sat there stupified in my car looking at them while the earlier images of the day drained away, replaced by the bittersweet and CRYSTAL-CLEAR realization that these beautiful children had a Daddy coming home to see them...and how many would not. I spent the evening tickling them on the couch, trying to burn their smiles and laughs even deeper into my psyche. I wonder how many similar versions played out in living rooms across the country that night. I'm so glad they're still young enough that I don't have to explain this to them right now. Michael quiet and subdued ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #349 ********************************