Responses - 25
     (Commenting has been disabled.)

"Elementary, Watson.  You should have known!  If I were President of America, none of this would have happened!  The signs were so evident, it's as though you let it happen twice!"

Where were all these brilliantly hind-sighted finger-pointers b4 the Twin Tower Incident?  I am uninformed; I am sure they hollered their message from mountaintops, but no one would listen.  I am sure.

That's not to say I don't think the strip is funny.

For instance

Yup.  "Might, may, perhaps, alleged, could, plan, possibly, potential, reported, said, warned, indicated, thought, sometime, somewhere."  It was all hearsay, and it was paid attention to and investigated (to a degree). . . but . . . box openers, for crying out loud!  Box openers.  Would we, the American People, have stood for the police state some say we now live in had nothing happened to precipitate it?  No.

In mighty America, the theory goes that people (and entities) are innocent until proven guilty. The press uses soft terms in this regard - ostensibly out of respect for that, but more to avoid lawsuits, certainly.

Box openers have been naughty in airports for some time. The sister of the ex, a grocery store worker, had box openers in her purse one time. They caused a problem at airport security at MSP. That was about five years ago. (The ceramic knife thing some of them terorrists did, that was clever.)

In Minnesota, for the last couple decades I was there, one TV news team or another seemed to have done a news story every couple years about how shitty airport security was. Reporters would stroll through secure areas, pick up and move baggage, walk onto empty airplanes, all without challenge. There were similar stories on the national news about other airports. Every time one of these stories ran, there were calls for better security - people wanted it! asked for it! demanded it! - and it wasn't provided. Now we've got soldiers with automatic weapons patrolling our airports.

FWIW, 'police state' is defined thus: "a government that seeks to intimidate and suppress political opposition by means of police, esp. a secret police force."

Understood.  But who would have put up with the incessant searches?  If times are good, which they were, and there is no precedent for imposing such inconveniences, which there wasn't really, few citizens would have dealt with it.  The ambient complaints alone would have put a stop to such practices within days.

"Possibly, perhaps, maybe."  It is not the press' words I quote; all the warnings truly were conjecture, hearsay.

"Some say" police state.  Read carefully, deary, and don't be so literal.  I would call it a personally/individually restrictive atmosphere.  A military state, if you will.

The phrase "But it's for our own good" doesn't mean much unless we're scared.

Well, OK. Maybe Bush knew something, but didn't know it. From a story at MSNBC.com:

The Bush administration has, for the first time, issued a report that says manmade emissions are tied to global warming and predicts that temperature changes will deeply affect the United States. Environmentalists said Monday the predictions warrant stronger action by President Bush, while some Bush supporters blasted the report as unscientific. The administration stood by its existing strategy, saying it protects the economy while protecting the Earth.

Learned of this via an entry at Boing Boing, which says:

Bush admits global warming exists, report recommends AC to offset effects
Well, the Shrub has finally admitted that global warming exists. He had to, after a study commissioned by his own government said, basically, "Duh, yes, stop being an idiot." However, the same report contains such howlers as "Health impacts ... can be ameliorated through such measures as the increased availability of air conditioning."

Besides, Bush looks like he enjoys playing the "strong leader in hard times."  Maybe he's in on it.  (Internet Spies, please note that I'm typing facetiously.  Expect my written apology tomorrow in every morning paper and news talk show.  Whatever you write into my apology, Internet Spies, I will gladly sign my name to.)

More potted meat pictures!

*laughing*... We were so cocky, so full of ourselves - and still are. Of course there were precedents, plenty of them, to indicate that our airport security was a joke... and not just because some reporters were successful every now and then at nosing around.

We (all of us) knew full well that terrorists were targeting America and Americans. The World Trade Towers had already been successfully targeted by terrorists back in 1993. Remember?

Our information and intelligence agencies knew that al-Qaeda was training pilots to fly big commercial aircraft. They knew this, and they admit this. That in itself wasn't enough warning?

The administration admits that they were specifically warned that hijackings were being planned... and at the same time clings to the claim that it knew nothing.

From CNN, May 18 '02:

The White House on Wednesday revealed that Bush received a CIA analysis August 6 that raised the possibility of a jet hijacking involving Osama bin Laden.

But Bush administration officials said that report lacked specifics, such as where and when, and that it wasn't even fathomable at that time that terrorists would essentially turn jets into huge, fuel-laden missiles, crashing them into buildings.

But other reports show that very possibility was considered by some intelligence experts and investigators before September 11...

Philippine investigators said that in 1995 they told the FBI about a terrorist plot to hijack commercial planes and slam them into the Pentagon, the CIA headquarters and other buildings. Philippine authorities say they learned of that plot after a small fire in a Manila apartment, which turned out to be the hideout of Ramzi Yousef, who was later convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center.

[I]n September 1999... [an] interagency government report... referenced bin Laden's terrorist network, al Qaeda, and its potential involvement in such a plot.

In the executive summary of that 149-page report, prepared during the Clinton administration and available on the Library of Congress Web site, the authors wrote:

"Al Qaeda's expected retaliation for the U.S. cruise missile attack against al Qaeda's training facilities in Afghanistan on August 20, 1998, could take several forms of terrorist attack in the nation's capital. Al Qaeda could detonate a Chechen-type building-buster bomb at a federal building. Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives (C-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House. Ramzi Yousef had planned to do this against the CIA headquarters."

"Conjecture, hearsay"? I guess you can call it that, since until something actually happens, that's all anything is. Read carefully, deary, and do be literal.

So, what should have been done?

It all started long before dimpled chads.

Sadly, everything always comes back to a complacent, disinterested public. We elect these people. We don't inform ourselves before or after elections. We don't pay attention to what our government is doing. We pay no mind to the effects (or affects [a gift there, from me to you]) of our foreign affairs. We don't know history, our own or anybody else's. I'm as guilty as anybody. Guiltier.

What should have been done? We, the population, should all along have been living up to the promise of a government by and for the people. We should have been smarter, even if our leaders weren't.

Beg to differ, hosty, I didn't vote for the Shrub - neither did a majority of the voting citizens in the U.S. [quick - name the three all-time leaders in terms of percentage won of the popular vote. That's right: in reverse order, Bush (2000), Clinton (1996) and Gore (2000).]



What should we have done? What should we do? When I was younger and more energetic, I'd try nothing less than changing the whole fucking world. Now I consider it a victory if my household holds true to my belief system [whatever that is...]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're differing with. Oh, I see: it looks like I was saying that we elected Bush. Sorry, that's not what I meant; I was ranting about the whole schmear.

That the last presidential race was close indicates to me that as a voting public, we're not informed. That Bush is in the White House indicates to me that as a voting public, we are complacent.

What should we (en masse) have done? In the first place, we should have been paying attention all along to what our politicians have really been doing - and then voting by the record instead of by party line and promises and nice teeth and name recognition and empty rhetoric. Like D Boone said, "Let the products sell themselves."

What should we have done after this past election? It could have been simple. If everybody who voted for anyone but Bush (or would have if they'd voted) made one phone call a day to their Representative - one phone call on the speed-dial every day, without fail and without cessation - the message would have been heard and Bush wouldn't still be where he is. All it would have taken was not caving. (Yes, I do still believe that the system can work.)

What can we do about it now? Not much besides getting ready for the next one.

Buda-Bum Tishhhh.

Sorry, man, I don't particularly believe in the system. As E. Costello once sang "I used to be disgusted, but now I'm just amused".

Somewhere in there, I quit being angry (much to the good of my mental and physical state) and started trying only to do things within my sphere like vote.

Cynical? Yeah, I guess, but events of 2000-on do seem to be reawakening my firebrand self (remember, I used to do stuff like sue my highschool) - I just try to work smarter (by affecting the things near me that I know I can change), not harder (by getting - and remaining - quixotically pissed off when some dunderheaded lawbreaker like Linda Chavez is nominated to Shrub's cabinet).


So my constant re-evaluation of self may yet lead me to take over the country and make it over in my image, but right now, probably sadly, I'm content to dwell in my urban home.


I hope any of that makes some kind of sense. And, by the way, I believe D. Boon spelled his name without the 'E'.

Further, this might say more about my state of mind tht crappy day in November a couple of years ago:

"You know, in many other places, waking up to a situation like the one I find this sunny and brisk November morn would mean that tanks and soldiers were about to march towards the palace for a little bloody coup action...
Gee, it's good to be an American sometimes. "

(http://www.strenturgent.com/blogarch/2000_11_01_archive.html#1305008)

Aren't you then, by voting, perpetuating a system in which you don't particularly believe?

Thing is, I don't particularly believe in the system either: it needs massive overhaul, tremendous change - but it's got to come from the bottom up, each of us doing a part... which doesn't have to be a whole lot more than voting - or not doing certain things. Like I said, I do believe that the system can be made to work - if people choose to work it. (And I also think that the safest way to change the system - that is, without bloodshed and savagery - is by using the system.)

The downside of everything I'm saying is, of course, that mob mentality can be just as dangerous as a powerful minority; both can do tremendous damage. The goodness and virtue of my notions depend first and foremost on people being informed, or at least smart... which is almost certainly the Achilles heel of the whole thing.

I share your gratefulness that we aren't in a place where there were post- (or pre-) 'election' tanks and soldiers. But that has very little to do with what I've been trying to say. I wonder: Isn't feeling that the government is outside of your sphere exactly what the elements of the government you'd like changed want you to feel? Don't they want us feeling powerless?

I understand and appreciate your points; Dave's too. Where we disagree, we disagree amicably. I've found these exchanges invigorating and challenging - when there's evidence that what I've said has been intellectually acknowledged.

I get the feeling people think I'm sounding angry or something; but I'm not writing angry. I wish I was able to be more clear.

By the way, D. Boon swiped the line I quoted from D Boone, who carved into a tree, "D Boone kilt a bar. Let the products sell themselves."

Politically disinterested people--formerly uninvolved, non-voting citizens--got caught up in a flurry of idiotic excitement and shackled me with Jesse Ventura.  Wellll, at-t least-t day vot-ted.  Day got-t out-t t-to da polls, and day vot-ted!  Hurray for America!  Hurray for Minnesota!  Vote Smart!  Vote Twice!  Just Vote!  I am babbling, that's what I do.  Can we talk about something else, now?

That's what I was talking about above: the Achilles heel of my desire... people not being informed, or at least smart.

I would prefer, yes, that we talk about something else now, because I'm feeling utterly misunderstood and dismissed and it's starting to give me flashbacks of childhood in religious school.

My apologies. I don't know that I misunderstood you so much as I didn't write very eloquently - my eloquence a casualty of coffee, work and listening to Captain Beefheart on headphones.


Yes, I think we agree - voting is a measure we can take to influence our own sphere (usually). Thaat is, indeed, working within the system. I think the system is broke (witness Dave's governor), but I still play at it. I just try to not be blood-boilingly angry at politicians and the system now - I save it for middle-aged buttheads in red sportscars who drive like testosterone-addled teenagers.


Yes, lets talk about religious school flashbacks. You know, I think while aspects of Catholic schools have been adopted for fetishistic icons (the naughty Catholic schoolgirl, the evil nun, etc.), Lutheran schools have been ignored. Why?

Nobody did nothin' what should have an apology attached but me. Fifteen yards for whining.

You and kv and Rodney - wherever he is, he dropped out before all this stuff - are the best friends I've got. (The Dearest One is in a class by herself, sorry.)

When people I don't care about disagree with me on something, I don't care. When people I do care about disagree with me on something, I get waaaay defensive. This is how I maintain my many successful relationships.

Sometimes I want a cigarette really bad.

1. Remember Curtiss A?  He's alive, but really old now.  2. Lutheran's are dissenters, and as such are not worthy of the effort required for Catholics to invent simple misinterpretations of their sacraments and rituals.  3. I quit smoking a few times; use the patch, man, and when you're really ready, promise on your marriage.  Seriously.  4. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'll bet there's alot we don't know.  And, unless we're made known all of it, I can't say one way or the other whether we SHOULD know.

Curtis A's first record rocked my world. I wish I could find it in digitized format.