From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V11 #54 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Thursday, February 14 2002 Volume 11 : Number 054 Today's Subjects: ----------------- St Spamday! ["Abydos *" ] St Spamday! ["Abydos *" ] Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and meeting Bayard ["Scott McCleary" ] Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines (RH 1%) [Michael R Godwin] Re: pining for the soul [The Great Quail ] Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and yesterday's post [Ken Weingold ] Fwd: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines [Eleanore Adams ] Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and meeting Bayard [Christopher Gross Subject: St Spamday! Happy V-day to all good Feggies everywhere. May Eros use only his golden tipped arrows on you, if ever in prison may heart-shaped flowers grow thru your window and bend the bars apart, and may, in proper Chauceresque manner, all your birds pleasingly mate together. So sing, in proper Pythonesque manner, "Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam etc." Kay It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:01:05 +0000 From: "Abydos *" Subject: St Spamday! Happy V-day to all good Feggies everywhere. May Eros use only his golden tipped arrows on you, if ever in prison may heart-shaped flowers grow thru your window and bend the bars apart, and may, in proper Chauceresque manner, all your birds pleasingly mate together. So sing, in proper Pythonesque manner, "Spam spam spam spam spam spam spam spam etc." Kay It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese. -Carl Sagan, astronomer and writer (1934-1996) _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 07:15:40 -0800 From: "Scott McCleary" Subject: Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and meeting Bayard JH3 queried: You were wearing the dark red Minor Threat t-shirt, right? Nope, but durned if I remember what I would have been wearing. My sister got the "I remember what I was wearing on any given day of my life" gene. But I do remember the big eyeball. ;-) Didn't meet the =b until '98, huh? NEW IDEA FOR A THREAD: When did everyone meet Bayard? What was he wearing? Did he ever sleep on your porch, oh sorry, that's probably not a good question.... I distinctly remember meeting him on Nov. 13, 1996. In an Ethiopian restaurant. I met woj and a bunch of other Fegs the same night. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 09:24:08 -0600 From: "Mike Wells" Subject: Re: stubby (warning R. Palmer content) Drew options: > Hey, I like OMD! Even more so now that I've head Dazzle Ships > and Architecture and Morality. The Power Station part is pretty > embarrassing, though. Going to see The Power Station was something of a lark, I have to admit. I really like(d) John and Andy Taylor from Duran Duran's heyday, particularly John's bass work, so most of the draw was there. The fact that Robert Palmer was fronting the band tipped it over the edge into "what the hell, I'll go just for shits" territory...a (very little) bit of star power added to the mix, and I sure was not going to pay to see him on his own. That and maybe they'd play Palmer's "You're Gonna Get What's Coming," one of the greatest rock songs ever. Then, perhaps sensing the futility of the whole thing, Robert quits the tour before Chicago and we get Michael des Barres instead. The only bright spot there is that it gave John and Andy free room for extensive jam sessions on stage, further obscuring the fact that they just didn't have enough material for a full show. As for OMD, they never flipped a switch in me prior going to the gig...and after seeing their dismal, limpid opening act I pretty much gave up on them completely. It really was appalling. In mentioning this to people who like OMD, they usually mumble some comment about how much better the albums were and wander off muttering to themselves. I should probably give them another try, but I'm afraid I just don't have it in me. Michael "gonna have to face it, you're addicted to cinnamon-sugar toast" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:22:04 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Profiling Fisrt of all, I would like to offer a possible distinction, that these acts of terrorism are not "crimes" as such. They are politically motivated acts of war against a nation state and its people, and have been declared as much by numerous Islamicist "leaders." I for one cannot read this discussion about profiling and criminality without keeping that in mind. The destruction of the Twin Towers was not an act of crime; nor was the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, the bombing of various embassies, the attack on the Cole, and so on. Like it or not, there is a force waging what they call a "jihad" against the US and numerous other states. Eleanor writes, >Now, I don't know much about the subject, but young white males >(well anyone really) can be angry and pursuaded to a cause, i.e that >kid who flew into a building in FLA, Johnny Walker, and other teens >who are looking for answers to problems.... This may be true. But there is quite a difference between these occasional wacko crackers & disaffected teen psychopaths and a network of terrorists such as al-Quaeda or the Hamas. The latter category is supported by state sponsorship, millions of dollars, and a pervasive ideology instilled upon new generations through numerous poisonous madrasas that have corrupted the teachings of Islam. They are a foreign agency with consistent support; not a random collection of dysfunctional social units. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:11:17 +0000 (GMT) From: Michael R Godwin Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines (RH 1%) On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, FS Thomas wrote: > Let's fuel the profiling-fire a bit: I've worked with quite a few > Jamaicans. He doesn't look Jamaican. He WAS Muslim, however, and he > does look quite a bit like the many men of ME decent that I met in > Chester. He fits the profile. See: for a pic of Richard Reid's mother. JH3 writes: > The documentary's all about this guy: > http://www.skthoth.com/SKTHOTH/Home_Pagex.html Now he _does_ sound Middle Eastern - that fiddle could easily be a weapon. - - MRG PS to Jim: Remember the RH percentage rating scheme? That's what you want revived, I suspect. [I managed to claim 1% on this irrelevant post because of the inclusion of the word 'Thoth')... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:44:08 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: Re: pining for the soul Ken writes, >...and search everybody. of course, it seems to me that whoever's out to get >us (last i heard, no one's claimed responsiblity for the world trade center >thingie) Oh, for God's sake. First of all, by calling it "the world trade center thingie," you display a profound lack of understanding and sensitivity for the magnitude of the event and the suffering it has caused. Your flippant diminutive is offensive to me on several levels, to be honest -- in fact, I think it courts mockery. What do you hope to gain by reducing the magnitude of the event for the sake of you argument? Second of all, you seem to be insistent on remaining in the -- what is it, like 0.1% -- of the world's population, including bin Laden himself (as evidenced in his various statements and infamous tape) that believes al-Qaeda was not behind this. >isn't going to do it with hijacked aeroplanes. at least not until we >all calm down and get back to business as usual. This is purely conjecture, and quite a dangerous one. Planes consistently get hijacked by terrorists; security is never absolute. Would you be willing to stake my life on your assertion? The lives of my family? I also find your use of the phrase "calm down" to be distasteful, but entirely keeping with your earlier dismissive tone. You assume some sort of superior ground by use of that phrase. >as someone who undoubtedly >has a dossiere on him, i think that folks that don't question their government >or make trouble should be able to get express boarding priviledges. hell, put >them in extra roomy seats with better food and...oh forget it. This makes no sense, and is totally irrelevant. No one is talking about complete obedience to the government here. This is just an example of typical leftist hyperbole, which I find as irritating as typical rightist crap such as "It is unpatriotic to question Bush at this time, yada yada." >hmmm...well, the new york times reported that there were roughly five million >afghans that were living on international aid before we began our war against >afghans...ahem...terrorism. Look -- support the war or not; critique it or reject it, fine. But to call it a war against Afghans only obscures any real dialogue with more leftist distortions. You may have issues with it being a war against "terror," but there are more cogent arguments that claiming this was a war against the Afghan people, no matter how many innocent civilians were tragically killed by the US. >i've read that it was after the period of the early ninties, when the soviets >had withdrawn and what has been described as the worst period in afghanistan's >history took place characterized by brutal acts on the parts of tribal >militants all over the country, that the taliban came to power and brought >stability to the country. people were actually glad to end this brutal >period. it's all relative. True. If I may risk invoking Godwin's Rule, most Germans were relieved when the Nazis came into power as well, because it ended a period of instability. That does not make it morally right, nor does it mean that by trading instability for stability, a population cannot make a choice that is later regretted. >one country's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". I do agree with your points about terrorism to a large extent, and it saddens me that the United States has arrogated the ability to define the term as it sees fit. (This does not, however, mean that I believe the acts of Hamas or al-Queda are anything but acts of brutal terrorism; though at least I *understand* -- but NOT CONDONE -- the desperate reasoning behind the Hamas more than I do the bankrupt lunacy of bin Laden.) >"everybody's just gotta keep fucking everybody else 'til we're all the same >color". That works for me; but religion, nationalism, ethnicity, territorialism, and even favorite football teams will still serve as divisive forces. But it's a nice Utopian dream with an erotic twist. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:35:53 -0800 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and yesterday's post On Wed, Feb 13, 2002, Jill Brand wrote: > Ken Weingold, you may be 33, but when I last saw you at a Kinks gathering > at the Sit n Bull pub back in 1997 or so, you looked like you were about > 14. I couldn't figure out what Julie Reid was doing hanging out with > jailbait! HAH! I'm 29, actually (30 in June), but I'm sure I don't look any older than last time you saw me, since I am told I don't look any older than I did in high school. So I was 25 when you saw me last, but thanks all the same. :) But wasn't the last time I saw you at the Ray Davies show at that high school in Newburyport? Weird scene.... - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:43:40 -0800 From: Ken Weingold Subject: Re: Re(2): A Day in The List On Wed, Feb 13, 2002, glen uber wrote: > I remember it by ZZ Top; never heard the Motvrhead version. > Unfortunately, allmusic.com isn't cooperating today so I can't provide a > definitive answer. Yeah, you can find it at least as one of the bonus tracks on the first album, Motorhead. Want me to rip it? - -Ken ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:58:05 -0800 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: Fwd: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines A reminder from NZ - we have a Bill of Rights, and a presumption of innocence here in the USA, and we must preserve these things. They are not practiced correctly as it is before 9/1, and I don't want more of these rights to disappear. I will live with some danger if it means to preserve these things. e > > On Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 09:10 PM, James Dignan wrote: > >> Wow you folks can talk! >> >> I hope this is my only addition to all this blether, so I'll make it >> long, >> get it off my chest in one hit. Apologies for that (especially to >> people >> like jim, who are bored with all this - and I can't blame him for >> that). >> >>> Anti-US attacks. Does this include kidnapings? (I >>> only ask because of the high percentage of Latin >>> American entries in the category. >> >> Ah, those evil Colombian and Ecuadorian moslems...! >> >>>> Yes, of course there are Muslim extremists - but >>>> there are extremists of >>>> every nationality and religion. >>> >>> True. You can't hamstring security for the sake of >>> political correctness, though. >> >> true. and for that reason, if you're going to check one group, you >> should >> check them all. Allowing non-Moslems through unchecked is in itself >> 'hamstringing security'. >> >>> I do feel genuine sympathy for Muslim Americans (be >>> they immigrants to this country or born citizens) for >>> any ill-placed back-lashes and inconveniences due to >>> security. I feel more sympathy, though, for the >>> families who lost loved ones as a result of the >>> terrorist attacks or who have family members serving >>> in the military stationed in the Mid East. >> >> the people who lost loved ones in the terror attacks, yes. But >> although I >> do feel for those with serving family-members, I feel less sympathy for >> these people - who knew damn well that those family members might some >> day >> have to serve - than I do for those who in many cases moved from >> oppressive >> regimes to 'the land of the liberty' (hah) where they are now being >> abused >> for simply having the wrong religion or skin colour. >> >> Freedom of religion is supposed to be important in the US - important >> enough to have been the first item in the bill of rights. >> >>> If a string >>> of crimes is committed and all the witnesses say there is one thing >>> about >>> the suspect that they remember distinctly, that information is used to >>> create a profile so that a more effective investigation and can be >>> made. >>> What this also does is give possible future victims a little better >>> chance >>> of not being a victim. They all say the person was a white man, so >>> should >>> all Chinese women now be considered suspects? >> >> no, but if a string of crimes has been committed by a group of >> different >> people, and if 95% of those crimes have been committed by one >> particular >> demographic, then can we say for certain that the next crime of the >> same >> type will also be committed by someone from this demographic? Is it >> better >> to check only that demographic and let 1 in 20 terrorists slip >> through, or >> to check everyone irrespective of their identity? If you're going to >> test, >> then test everyone. >> >> And if you were in Al Qaeda, and wanting more terrorism, would you now >> recruit people in the highest profile demographic? No, you wouldn't be >> that >> stupid. You'd start looking for gullible suckers who aren't middle >> eastern. >> You'd find... obh, I don't know... a Jamaican Brit, perhaps, who could >> be >> persuaded. Who knows who the next person will be? Chances are they'll >> be >> Moslem, but do Moslems fit a particular body shape or colour? >> >> Let's face it, most Moslems are not from the Middle East. The biggest >> Moslem countries in the world in terms of devout population are >> Indonesia, >> Nigeria, Pakistan, and BanglaDesh. Of those only Pakistan could be >> vaguely >> considered Middle-Eastern. Can you identify a moslem? What are you >> gonna >> do, offer them a ham sandwich and glass of whisky? That guy with olive >> skin >> and long beard? That's Rabbi Avi Goldblatt. That Chinese-looking guy >> over >> there must be safe... Well he's actually from the southern Philippines. >> Ethiopian passport? Orthodox Christian. French passport? Yes, but born >> in >> Algeria. That tall guy with the glasses? That's Kareem Abdul Jabbar - >> wanna >> test him? >> >>>> What's so illogical about re-screening passengers >>>> randomly, on the off-chance that Middle Easterners aren't the only >>>> people willing to hijack, or commit acts of mass violence? >>> >>> They may not be, but they're not the ones who have recently. >> >> are the INLA in N. Ireland and ETA in Spain Shi'ite or Sunni? >> >>> I hate George Bush, his policies and his illegal government of >>> cronies, >>> let's get that straight. However, just because I hate these, it does >>> not >>> follow that: >>> 1. I hate America >>> 2. I support anti-american terrorism >>> 3. I have more sympathy for (say) Afghans than for (say) Americans who >>> have been killed >>> 4. I think the Taliban, Soviets, Pashtuns or Al-Queda have any moral >>> high >>> ground over anyone >> >> in case someone suggests it, I am anti-Bush. I am not anti America - in >> fact, to use the old cliche, many of my best friends are American (a >> lot of >> them can be found on this list!). However I am against any suggestion >> that >> the US knows better what is good for the world than anyone else, and >> particularly I am against the idea that the US knows better what is >> good >> for the middle east. I have as much sympathy for innocent Afghans as >> for >> innocent Americans who have suffered. I have more sympathy for both of >> these groups than I have for the military who have died on either >> side. I >> do not believe that any people that wish to impose their will over >> another >> has any moral high ground, nor do I believe that followers of any >> religion >> have any high ground over each other or over the rest of the world. >> However, I also believe that some moral high ground may be claimed byu >> those fighting to liberate people from oppressive regimes, and that >> includes the NATO/US/UN/Northern Alliance forces. I would,. however, >> like >> the words 'liberate' and 'oppressive' defined in an acceptable way. >> >>> Long before Sept. 11, the refugee camps in and >>> around Afghanistan were over flowing by the millions and millions and >>> millions and millions and millions and millions and millions. >> >> either this is hypoerbole or (if you take 'millions' to be the minimum >> possible, 2 million) you've just accounted for 14,000,000 people. I >> make >> that 75% of Afghanistan's population. And that's just the overflow >> from the >> camps! >> >>> Or, better yet, why not make sure the airline screening process is >>> thorough >>> enough to catch as many weapons, bombs, etc. as possible without >>> stepping >>> on the rights of a few? Wouldn't it be better to come up a system >>> that >>> systemically searches and finds the tools of terrorism... >> >> hm. one problem. In the right hands, just about anything could be a >> tool of >> terrorism. >> >>> Is this country at war with a group of Middle Eastern Muslim >>> extremists? Unquestionably. >> >> funny, I thought the war was simply against terrorists. I don't >> remember it >> being called "The war against Middle Eastern Moslem terrorism" >> >>> "everybody's just gotta keep fucking everybody else 'til we're all >>> the same >>> color". >>> - -j billington bulworth >> >> sounds cool to me. When do we start? >> >> James >> >> np - REM - isn't one of them an airline terrorist? ;) >> >> PS - some of us have still never seen Robyn live in concert :((( >> >> 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, 14 Feb 2002 12:06:57 -0500 From: Ken Ostrander Subject: Re: pining for the soul >First of all, by calling it "the world trade center thingie," you >display a profound lack of understanding and sensitivity for the >magnitude of the event and the suffering it has caused. Your flippant >diminutive is offensive to me on several levels, to be honest -- in >fact, I think it courts mockery. What do you hope to gain by reducing >the magnitude of the event for the sake of you argument? you're right. i was being flippant; but it does bring up a valid point: what do we call the events of september eleventh? crash doesn't cut it. hijacking seems close; but not quite there. i've heard people refer to it as a bombing; but that doesn't work either. so i said thingie. i think i was mocking this difficulty more than the actual events. that said, i consider these events to pale in comparison to terrorist crimes committed by our government in the name of national security. >Second of all, you seem to be insistent on remaining in the -- what >is it, like 0.1% -- of the world's population, including bin Laden >himself (as evidenced in his various statements and infamous tape) >that believes al-Qaeda was not behind this. the tape argument is bogus. we were already there doing our thing when that questionable piece of evidence came to light. when the taliban offered to give bin ladin to an international court if they could be provided with proof, it was called a bluff. i really don't know if the taliban could have delivered osama; but we never did find out...and we still don't have him. the 'accomplishment' of replacing the taliban with the northern alliance is pretty weak. >>isn't going to do it with hijacked aeroplanes. at least not until we >>all calm down and get back to business as usual. > >This is purely conjecture, and quite a dangerous one. Planes >consistently get hijacked by terrorists; security is never absolute. >Would you be willing to stake my life on your assertion? The lives of >my family? > >I also find your use of the phrase "calm down" to be distasteful, but >entirely keeping with your earlier dismissive tone. You assume some >sort of superior ground by use of that phrase. i was joking around with the whole idea that the administration has been telling us to "stay on alert" but also to "keep shopping". of course it's distasteful. sorry that i haven't put more work into the nuances of my humor. the first thing i said in my message was that we should be checking everybody. that was not a joke. >>as someone who undoubtedly >>has a dossiere on him, i think that folks that don't question their government >>or make trouble should be able to get express boarding priviledges. hell, put >>them in extra roomy seats with better food and...oh forget it. > >This makes no sense, and is totally irrelevant. No one is talking >about complete obedience to the government here. This is just an >example of typical leftist hyperbole, which I find as irritating as >typical rightist crap such as "It is unpatriotic to question Bush at >this time, yada yada." more of the joke that i gave up on; but when you get bombarded with the rightist crap all the time, you have to push back. and i do. >>hmmm...well, the new york times reported that there were roughly five million >>afghans that were living on international aid before we began our war against >>afghans...ahem...terrorism. > >Look -- support the war or not; critique it or reject it, fine. But >to call it a war against Afghans only obscures any real dialogue with >more leftist distortions. You may have issues with it being a war >against "terror," but there are more cogent arguments that claiming >this was a war against the Afghan people, no matter how many innocent >civilians were tragically killed by the US. the use of the term terrorism is bullshit as it applies to our current foreign policy and i refuse to use it, except to say that jesus was a terrorist. so were ghandi, king, and mother jones. oh yeah...and mohammed. obviously, you're having problems with my glib tone; but i'm sick of being super-serious with all of this stuff. and i think that rather than obscure dialogue it actually spurs it. >>i've read that it was after the period of the early ninties, when the soviets >>had withdrawn and what has been described as the worst period in afghanistan's >>history took place characterized by brutal acts on the parts of tribal >>militants all over the country, that the taliban came to power and brought >>stability to the country. people were actually glad to end this brutal >>period. it's all relative. > >True. If I may risk invoking Godwin's Rule, most Germans were >relieved when the Nazis came into power as well, because it ended a >period of instability. That does not make it morally right, nor does >it mean that by trading instability for stability, a population >cannot make a choice that is later regretted. "They that can given up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin >>one country's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter". > >I do agree with your points about terrorism to a large extent, and it >saddens me that the United States has arrogated the ability to define >the term as it sees fit. (This does not, however, mean that I believe >the acts of Hamas or al-Queda are anything but acts of brutal >terrorism; though at least I *understand* -- but NOT CONDONE -- the >desperate reasoning behind the Hamas more than I do the bankrupt >lunacy of bin Laden.) i'm with you there. i understand where this violence comes from; but i don't condone violence. i keep wondering what it would take to push me to commit such desperate acts. >>"everybody's just gotta keep fucking everybody else 'til we're all the same >>color". > >That works for me; but religion, nationalism, ethnicity, >territorialism, and even favorite football teams will still serve as >divisive forces. But it's a nice Utopian dream with an erotic twist. love on ya baby! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:08:35 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: Re: the 80s, Ken the youngster, and meeting Bayard On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Scott McCleary wrote: > Didn't meet the =b until '98, huh? NEW IDEA FOR A THREAD: When > did everyone meet Bayard? What was he wearing? Did he ever sleep > on your porch, oh sorry, that's probably not a good question.... I didn't meet Bayard IRL until 23 May 1998, the day of the infamous Feg Hootenanny. Who could have predicted that one day he would be my landlord? > I distinctly remember meeting him on Nov. 13, 1996. In an Ethiopian > restaurant. I met woj and a bunch of other Fegs the same night. The night of the Robyn/Billy Bragg show at the 9:30 Club! I wasn't at the restaurant, but I was at the show. Of course I didn't know any of you Fegs back then, except for the Quail, who was there too. I'm ashamed to admit that that was the first time I ever saw Robyn live, having missed many many opportunities over the preceding five years. - --Chris np: a mix of Portuguese fado songs ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:09:58 -0500 (CDT) From: gSs Subject: Re: Out in Ballard looking soulful at the pines On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, James Dignan wrote: > > They all say the person was a white man, so should all Chinese women > > now be considered suspects? > no, but if a string of crimes has been committed by a group of different > people, and if 95% of those crimes have been committed by one particular > demographic, then can we say for certain that the next crime of the same > type will also be committed by someone from this demographic? Nothing but death is certain so there is nothing else that can labeled as such. But when the odds are that high it is what is called a sure thing and at 95% I would not put my money anywhere else. > Is it better > to check only that demographic and let 1 in 20 terrorists slip through, or > to check everyone irrespective of their identity? If you're going to test, > then test everyone. It is not at all practical to cavity search every person, only those that match the profile or have nice bottoms. (i had to duck real quick there so I wouldn't get pelted) > >Long before Sept. 11, the refugee camps in and > >around Afghanistan were over flowing by the millions and millions and > >millions and millions and millions and millions and millions. > > either this is hypoerbole or (if you take 'millions' to be the minimum > possible, 2 million) you've just accounted for 14,000,000 people. I make > that 75% of Afghanistan's population. And that's just the overflow from the > camps! 14 million is 53.8% of the population in Afghanistan. Over the last 20 years a conservative estimate of 50% has been given as the number of Afghans that have been displaced by foreign invasion and civil war and moved either permanentaly of temporarily to one of these camps. Many of which are simply a collection of homeless people, mostly women and children gathered together with some sort of organization from within themselves but with little or no support from their government or any other. gSs ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V11 #54 *******************************