Marc:

"Marc, would it be possible to get percent white or percent black compositions for these districts?"

I'll do better than that.

You didn't.

He asked a really simple question that didn't require such a long response, and besides he asked for statistical data and you gave him an emotional diatribe. Perhaps I need to read it again, but I couldn't glean the information he was asking for from what you responded. If it's there, it certainly isn't obvious or simple to understand.

It's also clear from your last post that you didn't understand what Mike was saying. I'm beginning to believe, actually, that you have a non-rational, non-linear, emotional/visual mode of thinking and aren't at your best in dealing with logical or statistical arguments. (And if that's the case, then I owe you a personal apology for assuming in the past that you were being deliberately deceptive.)

Anyway, what Mike was saying was that funding is only one factor behind educational performance. He was also saying that the demographics of the student body (average intelligence, background, etc.) is important in determing how well a school performs. This, of course, is outside the control of the school and no amount of improvement or reform in the methods used to teach children will affect it.

Finally, he was arguing that a better way than absolute outcome to measure school performance is to measure improvement from beginning to ending test scores of students.

So he wasn't saying, as you suggest, that all we need to do is give the schools more money. And therefore addressing that idea does not address what he said.

Mr. Rush writes,
"I'm beginning to believe, actually, that you have a non-rational, non-linear, emotional/visual mode of thinking and aren't at your best in dealing with logical or statistical arguments."

Mr. Rush, the folks running the show in Columbus are irrational. If you, or Mike Alexander would like to debate the statistical approach of the Bell Curve then fine. But then try doing that with the Bill Moss and the Columbus school board when we're finished, ok?

The fact is, is that facts don't count when it comes to running the show in Columbus, Ohio. Sure, the surrounding burbs have all the good students, the this and that. But until the black community begins to be honest with themselves, and stop listening to idiots on the left like Jesse Jackson, Judge Duncan, Bill Moss, and all those still seeking "restitution," via "redistribution of incomes" and outcomes, they are up a creek and doomed to fail. Why? Because it ain't whitey's fault anymore, its theirs!

That's the only point I've been trying to stress with this debate.

Marc:

But until the black community begins to be honest with themselves, and stop listening to idiots on the left like Jesse Jackson, Judge Duncan, Bill Moss, and all those still seeking "restitution," via "redistribution of incomes" and outcomes, they are up a creek and doomed to fail. Why? Because it ain't whitey's fault anymore, its theirs!

Well, setting aside anything Jackson, Duncan, or Moss might say as pretty much irrelevant, here's what I have to say on the subject.

The initial reason why poverty among African Americans is higher than among whites or other non-African races is that their ancestors were brought here in chains. For three hundred years, most of them had no opportunity to improve their lot. An occasional black person of extraordinary talent and courage, e.g. Frederick Douglass, might escape slavery and actually achieve prosperity or even fame, but for those lacking Douglass' soaring intellect and verbal gifts -- and even for some who did not lack those but lacked Douglass' good fortune -- this was impossible.

Emancipation did not bring what a reasonable person would call freedom, because law and economic realities were manipulated to keep most African-Americans in a state of unofficial servitude little improved over the official servitude it succeeded. Perhaps they were less likely to be bullwhipped. And if by some miracle -- certainly it was impossible through ordinary hard work -- they managed to escape to a more hospitable circumstance, they would not be pursued by armed agents of the law and dragged back. And certainly it became more difficult for their families to be separated and children forcibly taken from their parents. Otherwise, little changed.

This system persisted for another hundred years or so after slavery proper had ceased to exist. On top of the three centuries of slavery that went before, it inserted a poison of self-doubt, expressed sometimes as servility and sometimes as rebelliousness, into African-American culture.

To the extent that black people's circumstances are their own fault, as you assert, it is because of this cultural difference. But that cultural difference is itself whitey's fault. It would not exist except for the three centuries of the lash and chains and the century of Jim Crow that followed. So if you want to assign fault, it must be laid to us and our ancestors, not to African-Americans themselves.

However, fault is less important than solution. And I would agree that a major part, though not all, of the necessary solution lies in a renewal of black pride and positive black culture. At the same time, though, we should recognize that substantial elements of racism still exist in white society. And so a part of the solution must lie in breaking those elements where that is feasible, and compensating for them where it is not.

The last Awakening with its eruption of black rage probably did more to improve the lot of at least some African-Americans than the Civil Rights Act which immediately went before it, because it went to the heart of the problem. The first African-Americans I ever met who didn't seem to have "I am a descendant of slaves" branded across their foreheads were Xers. Among Millennial blacks, the attitude that they are full-fledged human beings with no apologies or defensiveness or self-doubt has become positively commonplace. This gives me hope, as does the relative lack of racism among Millennials of other races.

I would agree that this cultural and generational change presents the only real hope of fixing things. But one reason that is so, is that when it is complete, resistance to the institutional changes which are also necessary to correct for the residue of centuries of oppression will also vanish. And nobody will be making arguments like the one you have presented any more.

Paul Wellstone is an excellent liberal senator.

Here's what I wrote:

Suppose you have two classrooms, one filled with kids like my stepdaughter (or me) and the other filled with kids like my daughter.

You could have a chimp teach the first class and they would rack up 95+ percentiles on the tests at the end of the year. The second class would perform poorly on the standardized tests even if they had the very best possible instruction. The 60+ points of IQ difference between the two classrooms makes a difference, although to hear education experts talk you'd think it was irrelevant.

Simply put:
Class 1: kids like my stepdaughter
Class 2: kids like my daughter

60 points of IQ difference with Class 1 being high. Class 1 is going to do well on tests and Class 2 won't, regardless of the quality of instruction.

It is unusual to have two children in the same home with such disparate intellectual abilities. "X" is my wife's daughter (my step-daughter), and "V" is a foster child who came to live with us when she was just shy of 8 and whom we adopted at 10 (so she's been my daughter for 7 years).

[ This Message was edited by: Mike Alexander '59 on 2002-04-22 18:43 ]

On 2002-04-22 15:31, Eric A Meece wrote:
Paul Wellstone is an excellent liberal senator.

He's done a Liberal amount of work for the sugar lobby and ethanol producers like Archer, Daniels, Midland and keeping out imports from the Third World so their poor can stay poor...he's Liberal in his support of the WOT and the Occupation of Palestine. The Minnesota Greens are tempted to run a candidate against him; the Democrat-Farmer-Labor party is trying to squelch any involvement other than the DFL and GOP. He Liberally lied amout only serving two terms. I guess "two" is to two as "is" was to is...his opponent is another Liberal Democrat in RINO clothing, ex-Mayor Norm Coleman brought to our state by the DFL and now a RINO.

20 million dollars are to be Liberally spent on this two-party (sic) race. HTH

[ This Message was edited by: Virgil K. Saari on 2002-04-22 16:35 ]

He's done a Liberal amount of work for the sugar lobby and ethanol producers like Archer, Daniels, Midland

And therein lies the problem of identifying genuine liberals in Congress today, regardless of party affiliation. The influence of corporate money has so corrupted the state that democracy has become a sham, and if a politician wants to keep his seat, he confines his progressive inclinations to areas that do not threaten corporate dominance.

We have no liberal party today. But public opposition to corporate control is building. The explosion is much nearer than many suppose.

Mike, what happen to your excellent post? I identified with what you wrote a lot more than what you might think. I have a daughter by a previous marriage... I spent a lot of time and money trying to get custody back when she was eight (savable)... I failed. She should be graduating this spring. She probably won't. It's gut-wrenching to say the least.

Dave'47 wrote,
"Am I a bigot for having very little patience with the overtly narrowminded? Well, unlike those I have criticized, I don't publically berate people for behaving in an "inappropriate manner", when that actually means "other than the way we think you should". I don't ask nor do I expect others to practice my beliefs, yet "praying in public" as the local majority believes is "proper" is a ubiquitous practice in my neck of the woods."

I know both wherein you reside, and the kind of folks your speaking of. Have you ever been to Marin County out in California? Liberal mecca of America. Here in Ohio, our Marin is near Dayton, Ohio. It's called Yellow Springs. I guess, I'm a religious left bigot. I find these folks a real pain-in-the ass. Especially the hypocrital ones, the NIMBY ones, the pretentious ones... that like to pray, chant, mumble moronic phrases like Die Capitialist Pigs in public places like MacDonalds (with a sign in one hand, and a Big Mac in the other).

Life is much to short for this nonsense. I'd move away, if I were you. :smile:

Nothing new, I see:

On 2002-04-22 19:08, Marc Lamb wrote:

...savable[???]...a real pain-in-the ass... hypocrital... pretentious...pray, chant, mumble moronic phrases... nonsense...

I'll put in a good word for you at Antioch, Marc. Maybe they could send out a couple of liberal co-eds with a bucket of cold water for your libidal whatever.

--Croak

Gottcha outta retirement, eh, Croak! :smile:

p.s. If it's my spelling (savable) that gottcha, check Mr. Webster! :razz:

[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-04-22 19:57 ]

There has been much controversy, even on this thread, surrounding Rep. Cynthia McKinney's effort to get Congress to fulfill its oversight obligation (in line with the checks and balances which the Framers built into the Constitution for our own protection) with respect to federal agencies which quite obviously "dropped the ball" on 911. She is regularly painted as a loon and she may well be. But Michael Ruppert of From The Wilderness has compiled a report detailing the various documented instances of governmental foreknowledge which McKinney seeks to investigate. The reader can make his own judgment as to whether an investigation is warranted above and beyond what should be done routinely respecting the original intent of Constitutional checks and balances.

Ruppert's report is fairly long and I will only paste in three parts here: the introduction, the Mike Vreeland case, and the conclusion. Details on warnings which the US Government received in advance of 911; the blatant pre-911 insider trading centered on United Airlines, American Airlines, and major companies housed in the WTC; as well as intelligence successes in infiltrating al-Qaeda can all be found at the link. I include the Vreeland case here since it is so disgusting. The US Navy lied by maintaining that he had been discharged as a Seaman Recruit after four months of unsatisfactory service in 1986. Then the Pentagon later "screwed up" via speaker-phone in open Canadian court by accidentally confirming that Vreeland is indeed a Lieutenant on active duty as he had claimed all along. It is absolutely despicable and you are paying these people to lie to you. You can read further details below and at the link:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...bushknows.html

Briefing Paper

The Case for Bush Administration Advance Knowledge of 9-11 Attacks

by Michael C. Ruppert

? COPYRIGHT 2002, Michael C. Ruppert and FTW Publications, http://www.copvcia.com all rights reserved. May be reprinted , distributed or posted on web sites for non-profit purposes only.]

April 22, 2002, 1200 PDT (FTW) -- A dispassionate examination of existing reliable, open-source evidence on advance warnings of the Sept. 11 attacks provides strong and sustainable grounds to conclude the Bush Administration was in possession of sufficient advance intelligence to have prevented the attacks, had it wished to do so. With a known intelligence budget of approximately $30 billion, it must be assumed there are classified files that only add to the weight of the available data presented here. Is it reasonable to assume that what is presented here is the only intelligence the U.S. possessed?

This article will focus on four primary areas where the U.S. had information that forewarned of the attacks in sufficient detail to have prompted their prevention. Those areas are: Documented warnings received by the United States Government (USG) from foreign intelligence services; Obvious and large scale insider stock trading in the days before the attacks; Known intelligence successes achieved by the USG in its penetrations of Al Qaeda; and, the case of Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, a U.S. Naval intelligence officer jailed in Canada at the request of U.S. authorities, who -- with his attorneys -- spent months attempting to warn USG and Canadian intelligence officials of the pending attacks, only to be rebuffed and ignored.

This article will not focus on a number of well-known and documented instances where the Bush Administration actively interfered with or curtailed investigations into Al Qaeda-linked groups that could have provided even more intelligence. Included in this category are reports by the BBC's Gregg Palast, the French book "The Forbidden Truth," and a lawsuit/OPR complaint filed by an active FBI agent alleging investigations that could have prevented the attacks were derailed by superiors, in some cases on orders from the White House.

[snip]

DELMART "MIKE" VREELAND

"I believe that, from the information I have seen, Mike Vreeland tried to pass information to the Canadian government that should have been passed to the U.S. government. That information had to do with the attacks of Sept. 11. Whatever other attempts were made by Vreeland and his attorneys to alert U.S. and Canadian officials of the attacks, it is clear that he did pass information about the pending attacks to his guards in August. I am willing to go to the Secretary of the Navy to determine whether or not he was actually a Navy officer.

"I know that there have been other U.S. citizens with a similar background used on missions similar to what has been alleged by Vreeland. This man fits a pattern. I would like for the Secret Service to put him on a polygraph." -- Mike Osborne, a veteran former CIA case officer with 26 years of experience in counter-terrorism.

With a court record now estimated to approach 10,000 pages, the case of Delmart "Mike" Vreeland is starting to attract worldwide attention. Vreeland, with a growing amount of evidence admitted into court record in Toronto, Canada, claims to be a former U.S. Naval lieutenant assigned to the Office of Naval Intelligence. He was jailed in Canada -- at the request of U.S. authorities -- in December 2000 after returning from Moscow.

Although Canadian authorities initially alleged vague fraud charges against him and also held him on an extradition warrant alleging credit card fraud in Michigan, the actual motive for his arrest now seems to be something quite different. All Canadian charges against Vreeland were dropped this March and he has been granted political refugee status in Canada until the extradition issues are resolved.

Vreeland's position is that he returned from Russia to meet with a Canadian and a Russian intelligence operative, and had intended to hand over a sealed pouch containing intelligence documents. When the handoff was compromised and the Canadian did not show for the Toronto meet, Vreeland opened the pouch and looked at some of the documents. Those documents, which he later had translated, gave specific warnings of the pending WTC attacks that were to take place nine months later. Again, on its face, since these documents were in a sealed intelligence pouch, this indicates that intelligence operatives were aware of the contents because they had placed them there originally.

According to both Vreeland and his lawyers, as reported in numerous interviews with this writer and other members of the FTW staff, immediately after his arrest Vreeland began making urgent attempts to alert both Canadian and U.S. intelligence officials of the coming danger.

After eight months of unsuccessful attempts to have either Canadian or U.S. intelligence services debrief him, Vreeland wrote a desperate, last-ditch warning in August. Through means he will not disclose, he acquired two high-tech Pilot water-based pens with light blue ink and used them to write the letter. The only pens permitted by Canadian jail authorities were oil-based, dark blue Bic pens.

Immediately after writing the letter, Vreeland notified his jailers that he had pens which might be considered contraband. A Sept. 17 letter from the Ministry of Correctional Services was entered as Exhibit "M" into court records on Oct. 7, along with Vreeland's warning letter which had been opened on Sept. 14 and entered as Exhibit "N." The letter states, "On August 13, 2001 inmate Vreeland's corridor #2 was searched and as far as we know 2 blue ink pens were removed from his cell because they were considered contraband. There is no written record of them being placed in his personal property. He did submit a request to have them returned to him on August 14, 2001, but was denied."

Since the ink on the warning letter, if tested, will match the ink in the confiscated pens, there can be no doubt that the letter was written a month before the attacks.

In an interview with this writer published on April 4, Vreeland clearly stated his belief that Al Qaeda operations had been completely penetrated by U.S. intelligence services. That belief is supported by a statement in his warning letter.

The statement, following a list of potential targets that included the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House said, "Let one happen, stop the rest." Such a statement could only imply complete penetration or compromise of the terrorist cells perpetrating the attacks.

Compelling evidence continues to grow that Vreeland was, in fact, a U.S. Navy officer. On Jan. 10 from open court with a court reporter recording the conversation, his attorneys placed a speaker-phone call to the Pentagon. A Pentagon operator, after checking a back-up military database, confirmed Vreeland was a U.S. Navy officer and provided an office listing and a telephone number for his office. The primary database had been disabled, according to Vreeland, on 9-11. In addition, redacted and incomplete military records provided by the Pentagon to the Canadian courts indicate Vreeland had a service record of more than 1,200 pages.

This is difficult to reconcile with the U.S. Navy's assertion that Vreeland was discharged as a Seaman Recruit after four months of unsatisfactory service in 1986.

No press entity has covered the Vreeland case more than FTW. This writer has traveled twice to Toronto, sat in on court proceedings, and retained the services of a Canadian correspondent to cover the case. I have interviewed Vreeland personally and conducted numerous interviews with his attorneys. Greta Knutzen, FTW's Canadian correspondent, has also interviewed Vreeland and his attorneys, as well as Vreeland's mother. Knutzen has attended every court proceeding since January, 2002. All of our previous reporting on the case can be located on the Internet at http://www.copvcia.com.

Mike Vreeland believes that if he is successfully extradited to the U.S., he will be assassinated. Previous press stories concerning Vreeland's criminal past and a criminal arrest record fail to account for the fact that, as an undercover operative who targeted organized crime and terrorist organizations, a criminal record would have been necessary to give him credibility with organizations that have previously demonstrated capabilities to retrieve law enforcement records. They also fail to account for an Oct. 2, 1986 Los Angeles Times story that lists Vreeland as a non-criminal witness to a major cocaine bust carried out by LAPD investigators known to have contacts with USG intelligence services.

There is much about Vreeland's past that is objectionable, questionable, or both. But even in a worst-case scenario, nothing in his past explains how he was able to write a detailed warning of the attacks before they occurred, and why the intelligence services of both Canada and the U.S. ignored attempts to warn them while both Vreeland and his attorneys were banging down their doors.

CONCLUSION

There is clear and substantial evidence to suggest that the Bush Administration had sufficient foreknowledge of the attacks of Sept. 11 to have prevented them. Rather than viewing each of the four listed areas as a separate piece of evidence, they should be considered as a body, in the exact same way exhibits presented to a jury in a criminal trial are viewed as a body. By viewing the evidence in this manner, an unavoidable conclusion is reached -- the USG knew 25 suicide hijackers during the week of Sept. 9 were going to use United and American airlines commercial planes, some of them likely originating in Boston, to attack the WTC and the Pentagon. A multitude of press stories and intelligence reports indicate the WTC would have been the primary target.

Given the financial commitments made during insider trading activity that occurred immediately before the attacks involving businesses that were directly damaged by the attacks, the threats had clearly moved from the realm of speculation to reality. Why else would mysterious investors have risked millions of dollars to purchase the put options? There is compelling evidence to suggest these trades were noted by the CIA and other USG entities.

Recently, Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., has been widely criticized in the mainstream press for raising the need for a Congressional investigation to answer some of these obvious questions. This, in spite of the fact that popular reaction indicates a different sentiment. An opinion poll, conducted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution just a day after McKinney's remarks received wide public attention in a Washington Post story dated April 12, was pulled after poll numbers showed that 51 percent of the respondents agreed with McKinney.

The people seem to recognize and agree with the opinion of former CIA officer Mike Osborne who says, "I think that the U.S. government needs to get behind McKinney's questions because her agenda is truth and justice, and nothing else."

Ruppert has also compiled a timeline of events at the link below. I will paste in the Mike Vreeland items relating to the post above and the rest can be accessed at the link:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...1_02_lucy.html

19. August 11 or 12 - US Navy Lt. Delmart "Mike" Vreeland, jailed in Toronto on U.S. fraud charges and claiming to be an officer in U.S. Naval intelligence, writes details of the pending WTC attacks and seals them in an envelope which he gives to Canadian authorities. [Source: The Toronto Star, Oct. 23, 2001; Toronto Superior Court Records]

36. September 14, 2001 - Canadian jailers open the sealed envelope from Mike Vreeland in Toronto and see that is describes attacks against the WTC and Pentagon. The U.S. Navy subsequently states that Vreeland was discharged as a seaman in 1986 for unsatisfactory performance and has never worked in intelligence. [Source: The Toronto Star, Oct. 23, 2001; Toronto Superior Court records]

48. January 10, 2002 - In a call from a speaker phone in open court, attorneys for "Mike" Vreeland call the Pentagon's switchboard operator who confirms that Vreeland is indeed a Naval Lieutenant on active duty. She provides an office number and a direct dial phone extension to his office in the Pentagon. [Source: Attorney Rocco Galati; court records Toronto Superior Court.]

Stonewall---

Another Grassy Knoll theory is as predictable as Dr. Laura?s advice, and as useless. Get over it! Besides, Jerry Falwell and all the other tea preachers predicted it, too??cause of the homos and the porno and the NEA and stuff.

We need to get over 9/11 well enough to see that our own children have known terrorism long before us. Just how terrified would you be, Stonewall, if the bully gangs took over your life and your dad was an absent deadbeat? Fatherless boys out here in the Northwest are murdering at a rate that looks more like a 4T than a 3T. The skateboard is the new weapon of choice.

Our problems have much more to do with domestic matters than with foreign terrorists. I blame BankAmericard from about 1965.

--Croaker

Trying to keep the airport security thread alive...

A couple of weeks back, I had the 'opportunity' to fly to Salt Lake City for work (we have a plant nearby). I flew out on a tuesday morning, and back the next afternoon, so traffic at the airport was relatively light. I noticed that it took a long time for each person to pass security; fortunately, there was no one trying to get through when I passed, and I didn't have to wait too long.

Security in Portland was fairly effective. The only error I saw them make had to do with my boots. I generally wear steel-toes, and so I had to get the wand, since I set off the portal metal detectors. They had me take off my boots and passed them through the x-ray. No one stuck their hand inside. I could fairly easily have concealed two fist-sized items under the steel caps.

Salt Lake City was a joke (and it's a major hub!). Not only did my boots get the same treatment; I was able to take off my jacket and leave it on a chair while I was scanned, then pick it back up and carry on my way. I can only imagine what I could conceal in my jacket and boots combined.

Given the gross inadequacy of airport 'security' to provide security, I must wonder, What, exactly, are they doing??

Airport security... not good? Why, I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you. I thought the whole idea behind the president and congress federalizing this task, and making these screeners government employees, was to make them better and us safer.

Guess it only just made us feel better at the time. At least some of us. :smile:

p.s. Just wait till we make doctors and nurses federal employees. Now that'll be fun.

Marc Lamb wrote:

Airport security... not good? Why, I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you. I thought the whole idea behind the president and congress federalizing this task, and making these screeners government employees, was to make them better and us safer.

Guess it only just made us feel better at the time. At least some of us. :smile:

p.s. Just wait till we make doctors and nurses federal employees. Now that'll be fun.

... and just wait until we make soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen private contractors :grin:

On 2002-04-23 11:32, David '47 wrote:

... and just wait until we make soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen private contractors

The letter of marque was good enough for the Founding Fathers perhaps the WOT would be the place to try a return. Capt. Eagen might advise on the size of ship needed, etc. HTH

[Marc:] Mike, what happen to your excellent post? I identified with what you wrote a lot more than what you might think. I have a daughter by a previous marriage... I spent a lot of time and money trying to get custody back when she was eight (savable)... I failed. She should be graduating this spring. She probably won't. It's gut-wrenching to say the least.

[Mike:] Upon re-reading my post I felt it may not be appropriate to talk about aspects of my daughter's life that precede my relationship with her on an internet forum. Events that have happened *since* I have known her are also part of *my* life and so I have a right to talk about them if I wish, but I am not so sure events about her birth family fall in the same category.

As for gut-wrenching you are so right there. V is a good kid with a good heart. Unfortunately she lies and steals. At first only from us, hundreds of dollars out of my wife's purse and various personal items. And she forged one of our checks, for which she is going to court on Monday to plea guilty to felony forgery. But today she was fired from her job for stealing, or giving away free drinks to some boys, and because she got into a fight with another employee. A typical tangled "V story" that makes little sense.

With V its one goddammed thing after another. About six weeks ago she got expelled from the Catholic school we put her in after she got expelled from the Baptist school she was in before. Now she's at the local public high school. Sure enough, plenty of monsylabbic telephone calls from loser boys have been coming into the house. She has broken up with her old boy friend (a decent guy) but I still suspect they may get back together with him.

Well I took away her phone for while as a consequence for not telling us about what happened at work right away (she lied). This way I can screen out the loser boys :smile: Her old boyfirend just called now, but I let her talk to him for a couple of minutes, but I will keep her grounded from talking to the losers. [This was one reason why we didn't want to send her to the public high school, V doesn't have the sense to steer clear of the loser boys, most of the guys at the private school would not be interested in her and so she ended up with a guy she met at work (yes a guy with a job!) who is a decent enough guy].

Now an interesting thing in all this is V doesn't drink, smoke (at least not much) or use drugs (she is too unslick to get away with it--we would know). And the guys she has been interested in have been reasonably quality guys. [The losers are guys interested in her, she has a nice figure--very buxom, she's not really interested in them]. Both of these are very rare for kids with post traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder (anyone who has worked with a borderline know they are a handful). It would appear that our anti-drug and anti-loser campaign when the kids were were young worked :smile:

And the amazing thing is she hasn't become completely hostile. According to her parole officer, she has nothing but good things to say about me even though she knows that I will be throwing her out this fall when she turns 18 if she doesn't clean up her act. Funny eh?

Yet if she would just stop stealing and lying she can go back to being a regular teen, going to school, graduating and then she gets my sports car. Of course first she has to learn to drive, no drivers ed for somebody who lies and so is untrustworthy (the lying). It is the trustworthiness issue is that concerns her boyfriend, he wants her to get with the program and patch up things with us).

On 2002-04-23 07:35, Justin '77 wrote:

Given the gross inadequacy of airport 'security' to provide security, I must wonder, What, exactly, are they doing??

All of the armed people and all of the screening is really doing very little to actually improve airport security.

What would actually improve airplane security?(Note the noun there--we want to make the airplanes secure). Well, there are two levels--at the airport and on the plane.

At the airport: effective security would not waste time ramdomly picking passengers for searches. That 90 year old lady from North Dakota is unlikely to be a hijacker. Rather, sophisticated profiling and vetting the passenger lists would allow security to search and question those who are most likely to be hijackers.

I know, I know--this is politically incorrect--however, the kind of sophisticated profiling done in Europe and on El Al is not simply a racially based profiling--that is too crude to be effective--it is based on a mix of factors.

On the plane:
Here we want reinforced and locked cockpit doors and security measures in place for when the door must be opened. We also need passengers willing to "roll." Flight 93 changed hijacking for all time every bit as much as using the plane as a bomb did.

With these systems in place, we will not need the show of armed marines and ineffective shoe scans.

The reality of the scans and the people who run them is this: You could hire the best people and pay them much better and they still would make mistakes. It is human to do so and the likelyhood increases for every hour on such a boring yet intense job.

Finally, we were still much safer in a plane on September 11 than we were on the highway getting to the airport. We are just used to risks of the highway and September 11 was a risk we had not really considered plausible.

I think that early in a 4T we would expect lots of shows like the ones we are seeing at the airports. We are still too early in the turning to buckle down to the hard road ahead. But we are seeing calls for profiling and logical security that say we are moving deeper into the beginning of the beginning of the 4T.

Elisheva Levin

Another Glass Knoll theory?

What's to say the US Gov didn't know about September 11 in advance. Maybe they didn't know every detail but they had to know something.

I recall reading on the web that there were evacuation drills at the World Trade Center for two weeks preceding the attacks. I wonder why. I also remember reading that FEMA came to New York on the night of September 10. How did they know?

Stonewall, I can't verify what you're saying. But keep up the good work nonetheless. I applaud your willingness to discuss a theory, even if it appears repugnant. McKinney is on to something here. Even if the politicos don't want to agree.

Another grassy knoll?

What I find amazing, first and foremost, among our latest bunch of conspiracy theorists (indeed, all since the Warren Commission), is how much competence they credit our government officals with... all the while calling them idiots and dunderheads!

I mean, I bet I could do a search of this very website and find hundreds of times where Stonewall Patton has called Bush something less than an idiot. Yet, here's Bush, pulling off one of the grandest, gaudiest, far-reaching conspiracies of all time! Shhhh, can you keep this under your hat, it's classified information?

Too much fun, Mr. Patton. Too much fun! :lol:

Fourth Turning- possibility of foreign involvment with OKC? Well, it's not established. It may or may not be true. But if our leaders believe it that would go a long way towards explaining Admin. rhetoric about "regime breakup" and the like.
http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/i...id/241237.html

Insight Online World Exclusive
Posted April 19, 2002
By Kenneth R. Timmerman

The retirement of career FBI Special Agent Danny Defenbaugh, accused by defense attorneys and plaintiffs in the Oklahoma City bombing case of withholding key evidence, wasn't the only dramatic development in the continuing controversies surrounding the April 19, 1995, attack that killed 168 people.

Insight has learned that the widow of Philippine-government intelligence agent Edwin Angeles has provided audiotaped testimony to an investigator working for the American victims' families that directly ties Iraqi intelligence agents to Terry Nichols, the man sentenced in 1998 to life in prison for his role in bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Building seven years ago.

On 2002-04-23 19:50, JayN wrote:

Another Glass Knoll theory?

What's to say the US Gov didn't know about September 11 in advance. Maybe they didn't know every detail but they had to know something.

I recall reading on the web that there were evacuation drills at the World Trade Center for two weeks preceding the attacks. I wonder why. I also remember reading that FEMA came to New York on the night of September 10. How did they know?

Stonewall, I can't verify what you're saying. But keep up the good work nonetheless. I applaud your willingness to discuss a theory, even if it appears repugnant. McKinney is on to something here. Even if the politicos don't want to agree.

Well, Jay, I would not equate what I posted with "Grassy Knoll" conspiracy theories and you have just reinforced the meme which the original poster deliberately introduced as a distraction. Note that there is nothing in the report I posted about the Bush administration "masterminding" 911 and thus no trace of any accusation of any kind of Bush administration "conspiracy." What there is is undeniable, on the record, fully documented proof of many forewarnings which the federal government received in advance of 911 yet obviously did not act upon. Why is that and why have no heads rolled? Why does the administration object so strongly when anybody like Cynthia KcKinney seeks to root out that incompetence? Do we as Americans really want that incompetence to remain in place after 911? Should they not be replaced by somebody competent for our own safety?

But the specific example I posted from the report, the Vreeland case, illustrates another point. The man claimed to be a Lieutenant on active duty in the US Navy (and this fact obviously bore upon his own defense in court). When asked for confirmation, the US Navy lied to a Canadian court, for whatever reason, essentially disavowing all knowledge of Vreeland by asserting that, according to their records, he had been discharged as a Seaman Recruit after four months unsatisfactory service in 1986. Yet when a call was made to the Pentagon switchboard via speaker phone in open court, the switchboard operator, forced to use a backup database in the aftermath of 911, provided unaltered confirmation that Vreeland was a Lieutenant on active duty as he had asserted all along and gave the direct dial extension to his office at the Pentagon. And curiously enough, Vreeland's heavily redacted service record, which the Navy did provide, runs in excess of 1200 pages. The man is a Lieutenant on active duty in the US Navy. Who the hell do these cretins think they are to lie when questioned by American citizens about anything? They report, we decide!

In America, this kind of behavior on the part of governmental servants would not be tolerated. Americans would see to it that anybody in uniform who willfully participated in such a lie sits before a court martial and any participant not in uniform would face charges in civilian court. To let this sort of vermin escape scot-free gives them sanction -- and license -- to repeat similar lies in the future. And who knows? In the future, it just might be you, a family member, or a friend, whom our servants leave to hang through lies. But I am only speaking of self-governing Americans of course. America died a long time ago so it does not matter because there are no longer any Americans around -- only mind-numbed robots and Kool-Aid drinkers.