OT: terrorism (funny)

[Guest guest]

i think he was talkin in teh sens of the word as in we are more focused on

terrorism and the casulties it is inflicting

rather than the MILLIONS of ppl dying becuase of corporations and false

studies/bad foods ect ect

i mean there was big focus on the 9/11 and all the ppl who died there. And

yes it was a damn bad thing ect

but what about the millions in theri 40's needlessly dying of heart disease

and the ppl effected by that?

i tink what he is trying to say is the focus has been 100% in the wrong area

rahter than adn overall focus on ppl

_____

From: and Michele [mailto:ctr24845@...]

Sent: Monday, 10 November 2003 3:57 PM

Subject: Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

>> We have to have security or we have loss of life. Lets get down to

>> the nitty gritty: do you want to be on the flight or one of your

>> loved ones --where they miss someone with intent to kill, because

>> we want to criticise the needed security?

I read somewhere that 34,000 people in the US die per year from

the flu. A lot more than that die from smoking, and 2nd hand smoke

in homes. So, is it time to implement martial

law to enforce flu shots and ban cigarettes?

People chose to smoke and eat " bad " food, and flu shots don't protect you

from all flu strains (besides it's a bacteria (virus?) not a person intent

on killing). I think we should try to stop murderous people from killing

even if it's just a " a fraction of people " as you put it. You make it sound

like it's okay that some people are killed by terrorists because it's just a

fraction. I think someone directly affected might not think it was okay.

Michele

Terrorist attacks

are nasty and create fear, but at their best they kill only

a fraction of the people being killed by bad food, drunk

drivers, and all that other " acceptable risk " stuff we take

for granted.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

People chose to smoke and eat " bad " food, and flu shots don't protect

you from all flu strains (besides it's a bacteria (virus?) not a

person intent on killing). I think we should try to stop murderous

people from killing even if it's just a " a fraction of people " as you

put it. You make it sound like it's okay that some people are killed

by terrorists because it's just a fraction. I think someone

directly affected might not think it was okay.

>

> Michele

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Heidi was clearly not saying it's okay; she was admitting the

awfulness but placing it in perspective. The numbers and facts

speak for themselves. Our sense of priority and perception of

significance is deeply perverted by corporate media. What we hear

about (or are bombarded by in some cases) is what we think is

important; what we are not told about we don't even think about at

all. There are probably dozens of issues that only fringe folks have

an awareness of but whose ramifications are thousands of times more

serious than anything brought to our attention by corporate media.

In certain health-related matters, many people on this list would be

fringe folks with realizations completely off the map of our culture-

at-large.

Michele, I think you were attacking a straw man by referring to

something tragic and those directly affected.

Mike

[Guest guest]

Governemnts created terrorism with their policies and killing of ppl in

these other countries years gone.

they need it to keep your fear fed. They make money out of it.

well yes they do spend lots of money in other areas.

however its looking for " cures " to man made illnesses

its high time they stopped spendign all our tax money and instead simply got

rid of the shit in our food

btu tehr eis no money in that. Most ppl think its all a conspiracy but it

really isnt.

its jsut abotu money. nothign more

_____

From: and Michele [mailto:ctr24845@...]

Sent: Monday, 10 November 2003 4:15 PM

Subject: Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

But doesn't the govt already focus tons on diseases? They are obviously

going in the wrong direction, but focusing on terrorism doesn't mean that

there aren't already monies being thrown in other directions. I just think

it's wrong to say don't focus on terrorism because it's only affecting a few

people, but focus on diseases only. The focus on disease has just seemed to

cause more disease. I don't know what the answer to that is, but not

stopping terrorist isn't going to cure people's bad eating habits. I agree

(with someone can't remember who) that govt should stay out of the eating

habits business. But I do want them to protect us from murderous invaders.

Okay, I can lighten up, but I didn't have anyone killed on 9/11 either.

Michele

Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

>> We have to have security or we have loss of life. Lets get down to

>> the nitty gritty: do you want to be on the flight or one of your

>> loved ones --where they miss someone with intent to kill, because

>> we want to criticise the needed security?

I read somewhere that 34,000 people in the US die per year from

the flu. A lot more than that die from smoking, and 2nd hand smoke

in homes. So, is it time to implement martial

law to enforce flu shots and ban cigarettes?

People chose to smoke and eat " bad " food, and flu shots don't protect you

from all flu strains (besides it's a bacteria (virus?) not a person intent

on killing). I think we should try to stop murderous people from killing

even if it's just a " a fraction of people " as you put it. You make it sound

like it's okay that some people are killed by terrorists because it's just a

fraction. I think someone directly affected might not think it was okay.

Michele

Terrorist attacks

are nasty and create fear, but at their best they kill only

a fraction of the people being killed by bad food, drunk

drivers, and all that other " acceptable risk " stuff we take

for granted.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I agree (with someone can't remember who) that govt should stay out

of the eating habits business. But I do want them to protect us from

murderous invaders.

Michele

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

I agree in some theoretical utopian sense, but the fact is that gov

**can't** stay out of the eating-habits business unless they stay out

of the corporate-regulation business or information-regulation

business, complete impossibilities within our current social

structures or any variants of them possible in our lifetimes.

Of course, I am simply making vague, bold claims without evidence or

argumentation, so I could be completely wrong about this.

Mike

[Guest guest]

dont forget the forcing of making you have pasturised milk products

hehehe

with these awesome 0.1% fat varietes that also has " fortified vitamins "

All for your health

i think i saw a low fat cream the other day to. that kinda made me laugh

_____

From: and Michele [mailto:ctr24845@...]

Sent: Monday, 10 November 2003 4:49 PM

Subject: Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

I agree with you, it's getting worse and worse, and many people just follow

along. I'm on the fringe now that I don't anymore. All fat is bad, they

will manufacture fat for us to eat (in small amounts, of course). All meat

is bad, carbs are good and sugar we just won't mention because too many

people are making money off it.

Michele

Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

>> We have to have security or we have loss of life. Lets get down to

>> the nitty gritty: do you want to be on the flight or one of your

>> loved ones --where they miss someone with intent to kill, because

>> we want to criticise the needed security?

I read somewhere that 34,000 people in the US die per year from

the flu. A lot more than that die from smoking, and 2nd hand smoke

in homes. So, is it time to implement martial

law to enforce flu shots and ban cigarettes?

People chose to smoke and eat " bad " food, and flu shots don't protect you

from all flu strains (besides it's a bacteria (virus?) not a person intent

on killing). I think we should try to stop murderous people from killing

even if it's just a " a fraction of people " as you put it. You make it sound

like it's okay that some people are killed by terrorists because it's just a

fraction. I think someone directly affected might not think it was okay.

Michele

Terrorist attacks

are nasty and create fear, but at their best they kill only

a fraction of the people being killed by bad food, drunk

drivers, and all that other " acceptable risk " stuff we take

for granted.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

There is also a new trend in australia for " loosing weight " ( even though

our obesity is rising still )

our latest trend is low everything + also Low GI foods now to.

i bet a man or woman from 500 years ago would laugh their heards of at the

amount of time we spend on " nutrition " when all they used to do was eat

the same as their ancestors without any thought or worry as to the GI

content ect

i think humans try and act " smarter ect " simply made shit insanely

complicated with many conflicting views just to confuse u into thinking

experts are more godly than even they think they are.

_____

From: and Michele [mailto:ctr24845@...]

Sent: Monday, 10 November 2003 5:05 PM

Subject: Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

It's all about fake food now, fake sweetener, fake fat, fake milk (the

super-de-duper pasteurized stuff), fake bread (made with soy). Everything

is " low " , low-fat, low in sugar, low carb, meat substitute. It's like

there's nothing left to actually feel like your eating. I wonder what will

happen to the people who eat low carb, low fat, low meat, low sugar, will

they just keel over one day?

Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

>> We have to have security or we have loss of life. Lets get down to

>> the nitty gritty: do you want to be on the flight or one of your

>> loved ones --where they miss someone with intent to kill, because

>> we want to criticise the needed security?

I read somewhere that 34,000 people in the US die per year from

the flu. A lot more than that die from smoking, and 2nd hand smoke

in homes. So, is it time to implement martial

law to enforce flu shots and ban cigarettes?

People chose to smoke and eat " bad " food, and flu shots don't protect you

from all flu strains (besides it's a bacteria (virus?) not a person intent

on killing). I think we should try to stop murderous people from killing

even if it's just a " a fraction of people " as you put it. You make it sound

like it's okay that some people are killed by terrorists because it's just a

fraction. I think someone directly affected might not think it was okay.

Michele

Terrorist attacks

are nasty and create fear, but at their best they kill only

a fraction of the people being killed by bad food, drunk

drivers, and all that other " acceptable risk " stuff we take

for granted.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Michele wrote -- <<But I do want them to protect us from murderous invaders.>>

what about the murderous American citizens who manage to shoot dead more than

11,000 of you a year?

Dedy

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>The most dangerous things in this country which lead to hospitalizations and

>clearly should be eliminated as the abominations they are are 1) stairs, 2)

>pillows, 3) nails, screws, and tacs, and 4) books. And all these leftists are

>whining about civil rights and how the poor have to live in apartment

>complexes. I say you're either with us, or you're with the two-floor

terrorists.

>

>Chris

Accchh! You caught me! Here I am living in a two story house

WITH a hot tub and pillows and nails, AND books! So when are

the brownshirts coming to get me?

-- Heidi

P.S. While I'm confessing, I also have a Spinning Wheel

which, according to Disney, caused near-death to a certain

Princess. Really, though, I haven't figured out what she DID with

the wheel to cause that. I've had a 7 year old and 9 year old playing

with the device for awhile and neither has fallen into a trance, though

the 7-year old has tried to use the device to entrap the cat, via

feathers tied to the wheel. The cat and both kids are still fine.

[Guest guest]

>People chose to smoke and eat " bad " food, and flu shots don't protect you from

all flu strains (besides it's a bacteria (virus?) not a person intent on

killing). I think we should try to stop murderous people from killing even if

it's just a " a fraction of people " as you put it. You make it sound like it's

okay that some people are killed by terrorists because it's just a fraction. I

think someone directly affected might not think it was okay.

>

>Michele

No, it's not " ok " . Nor is it ok for a drunk driver to slam my car, or a lion

to eat my kid, or a virus to kill my kid. It's not ok for my kid to get drafted

either.

I'm as paranoid as anyone. But there are statistics ... the BIGGIST risk to my

kids, at this time and place, are flu and drunk drivers. We have mountain lions

in the area too, which are a risk to kids. But statistically, they aren't a

really

big risk.

The SCARIEST thing in my life is plane flights. I hate being up in the air.

I admiit it. I also hate taxis and limos and waiting in line. Prior to 9/11,

being

up in the air 20,000 feet was the worst thing in my life. Still is. The amount

of terror has not changed. I just don't like being high up.

My challenge is balancing (mathematically) " scary " vs. " probable " . My

suspiciion

is that politicians and the media work on " scary " and not on " probable " .

Now, if I wanted to write a novel, it would be about a bloodthirsty mountain

lion

inhabited by spirits waiting to pounce on my loved ones ...

Seriously, I am speaking as a person who is forced to fly on a regular

basis and DOES think about this stuff. I am not being cavalier about the

risk, or not intentionally anyway.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 10:15 PM 11/9/2003, you wrote:

>. I don't know what the answer to that is, but not stopping terrorist isn't

going to cure people's bad eating habits. I agree (with someone can't remember

who) that govt should stay out of the eating habits business. But I do want

them to protect us from murderous invaders. Okay, I can lighten up, but I

didn't have anyone killed on 9/11 either.

Terrorism can be averted with good espionage and with addressing the underlying

causes. Happy

people do NOT become Terrorists (they become Yuppies). But gluten does WEIRD

things to brain

patterns, beyond 'bad' eating habits. I expect about 50 years from now someone

will write the

definitive work on the subject, but I won't be here!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

How about " low-fat half and half " ? Haven't seen it for a while but it was on

restaurant tables around here a while back.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

From: Byron [mailto:anthony.byron@...]

dont forget the forcing of making you have pasturised milk products

hehehe

with these awesome 0.1% fat varietes that also has " fortified vitamins "

All for your health

i think i saw a low fat cream the other day to. that kinda made me laugh

_____

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/10/03 11:13:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ctr24845@... writes:

> There is a coffee creamer that my mil was buying and using in place of

> cream. It was like no fat cream.

Oh, do you mean Cofee Mate? I've been trying to reduce my intake of

saturated fat lately in an effort to prevent heart disease and cancer (I'm

getting

older, and will be 22 in several weeks), so I picked this up because it seemed

to

be high in a variety of nutrients that I've been otherwise, in my estimation,

lacking in my diet, such as partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, soybean and

canola oil, aluminum (in the highly absorbable form of sodium

aluminosilicate), artificial flavors, and colorings.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Several responses.

In a message dated 12/10/03 12:59:29 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ctr24845@... writes:

> People chose to smoke and eat " bad " food, and flu shots don't protect you

> from all flu strains (besides it's a bacteria (virus?) not a person intent on

> killing). I think we should try to stop murderous people from killing even

> if it's just a " a fraction of people " as you put it. You make it sound like

> it's okay that some people are killed by terrorists because it's just a

> fraction. I think someone directly affected might not think it was okay.

,

The issue is " what is a reasonable response, " not " should we try to do

anything. " The world would be a much safer place if all people were

individually

quarantined, fed intravenously, and kept on life support indefinitely. It would

be virtually impossible for any harm to come to anyone. But no one would

enjoy life, and no one in their right mind would submit to such a situation.

Martial law is not a reasonable response of any sane person to the terrorism

we've experienced, and there's no evidence whatsoever that such an imposition

would reduce the risk of future attacks.

More fundamentally, you and Ringaroundthemoon seem to be mistaking the

purpose and threat of terrorism for the murdering of innocent civilians. That

is

not the purpose of terrorism, nor is it the primary threat that arises from

terrorism. Terrorism aims to kill or harm small numbers of people or use some

other means to effect the end of a perception of imminent harm to large numbers

of people, with the ultimate goal of inducing panic. The way to combat

terrorism, aside from catching and punishing the terrorists is to avoid the

panicked

state which the the terrorists seek to induce.

For someone opposed to terrorism, you and anyone else supporting martial law

(if you actually meant to do so), seem awfully intent on doing their job for

them.

By the way, doesn't anyone remember what happened in Germany when Hitler

convinced the parliament to democratically vote to temporarily suspend the

constitution for four years for national security reasons in order to combat the

supposed terrorist threat? Did it occur to anyone that that temporary

suspension

of the constitution for national security reasons did a lot more harm to the

world than the threat of communist terrorists at the time ever did or could

have done?

Chris

_________

Mike wrote:

" The numbers and facts

speak for themselves.  Our sense of priority and perception of

significance is deeply perverted by corporate media "

~~~~~~ Mike, It's worth pointing out that some publications of the largest

media corporations such as the New York Times ran good articles pointing out the

absolute absurdity of the lack of perspective on this issue. For example,

the stats I cited about the danger of stairs, nails, books, and pillows, came

from an NYT article ranking the number of hospitalizations caused by some thirty

or so causes, in which those four things topped the list, and the last two

things were SARS and terrorist attacks.

Chris

_______

wrote:

" Sure there are lots of things that " so far " kill more people.  Hey, I

understand the politics, every guy that gets pulled over for speeding thinks the

cops should be out stopping the " real " criminals, but the top three causes of

car

accidents and the most deaths are caused by (in probably the wrong order)

speed, following too close, and (I think) not yielding the right of way. "

, You're overlooking the fact that the vast majority of speeding

tickets are given out in the areas which are easiest to take radar, which are

coincidentally the safest places to speed, the role insurance companies, who

profit madly from speeding tickets, play in the setting of speed limits and the

facilitation of their enforcement, the fact that most speeding tickets are given

for 10-15 mi/hr above the speed limit, depsite the fact that studies show that

people who drive 10-15 mi/hr above the speed limit actually get in less

accidents than people who drive the speed limit.

Chris

_______ 

Mike wrote:

" I'd like to know more about the dangers of books.  Is it from when

you read something really fascinating and then spontaneously leap out

of your chair with excitement and bang your head on a sharp, heavy

object?  That's definitely been a big problem for me, but I wasn't

sure if it was common across the population.  I think it would be

better to just get a reading helmet instead of getting rid of books

altogether, although I admit the latter is a much safer solution,

maybe the kind that would make more sense to government agencies. "

~~~~~~Mike, I'm not sure what the dangers are statistically, though that

sounds reasonable and a reasonable solution. However, anecdotally, I've read

news

stories of problems that your solution would not eliminate. For example,

there was a university professor (I think this was out of the country, in

Serbia,

maybe), who had a book shelf fall over on him, and there were piles of books

surrounding him, and he was locked in his room for four days with no access to

food!

Chris

_______

[Guest guest]

way to go chris.

by the time you are 28 you will be the perfect consumer.

not only will you be buying all these wonderfull healthy products from your

local corporate food shop

but you will also be doing your part to make the pharmecutical industry the

number 1 money maker in the world.

hehehehe

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2003 9:14 AM

Subject: Re: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

In a message dated 12/10/03 11:13:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ctr24845@... writes:

> There is a coffee creamer that my mil was buying and using in place of

> cream. It was like no fat cream.

Oh, do you mean Cofee Mate? I've been trying to reduce my intake of

saturated fat lately in an effort to prevent heart disease and cancer (I'm

getting

older, and will be 22 in several weeks), so I picked this up because it

seemed to

be high in a variety of nutrients that I've been otherwise, in my

estimation,

lacking in my diet, such as partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, soybean

and

canola oil, aluminum (in the highly absorbable form of sodium

aluminosilicate), artificial flavors, and colorings.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Perhaps you should take a peek at this:

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_your_fats/know_your_fats.html

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

In a message dated 12/10/03 11:13:34 AM Eastern Standard Time,

ctr24845@... writes:

> There is a coffee creamer that my mil was buying and using in place of

> cream. It was like no fat cream.

Oh, do you mean Cofee Mate? I've been trying to reduce my intake of

saturated fat lately in an effort to prevent heart disease and cancer (I'm

getting

older, and will be 22 in several weeks), so I picked this up because it

seemed to

be high in a variety of nutrients that I've been otherwise, in my

estimation,

lacking in my diet, such as partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, soybean

and

canola oil, aluminum (in the highly absorbable form of sodium

aluminosilicate), artificial flavors, and colorings.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Ok, well, my point was that we have lots of things that statitically doesn't

seem so bad, we are just more worried about them, like airplanes. Driving is

soooo much more dangerous (I'm not even talking about drunk drivers here) My dh

was asleep last night, now he's gone, but if he were here I could give you the

actual statistics.

I agree, obviously!

>Anyway, I think it is the gov job to defend and protect the nation, and I think

terrorist will keep attacking on our soil and off. I realize people are just

going to disagree with me. Hopefully it own't get worse, hopefully heart

attacks and cancer will keep killing us and we can all feel safe [hehe tongue

in check there]

Terrorists have been around forever -- and will be. I grew up with

the LA gangs, which are a kind of terrorist too. I'm not for " allowing "

them to flourish! It's just that historically and statistically, marshall law

and " harsh " measures have not WORKED. Over and over again in history,

some group gets upset, starts waging low-level war ( " terrorism " to the other

side). The bigger side gets harsher and harsher and usually loses. Witness

the revolution of 1776, for instance. Or the " war on drugs " . Or the crackdown

on Christians by the Romans.

What HAS worked historically are:

1. Espionage/detective work

2. Preventative measures

3. Propaganda

4. Statesmanship

One reason there were no big terrorist attacks during the Clinton era

was a lot of #1. During the Washington " regime change " the spy networks

got rather in disarray. I'm all for #2 also -- funding good schools, for

instance,

to bring up a lot of freethinkers with good educations. But how do you

bomb terrorists? Do you really think martial law will make one whit

of difference? The harsher the " bigger " side gets, historically, the more people

flock to the " underdog " (as they see it) side. It's kind of like when

a father has a kid that wets the bed, so he beats the kid to punish him.

The kid gets upset, and wets the bed more. Harshness only works

up to a point and in certain circumstances. Are you really certain it

will work for Middle Eastern terrorism? If so, why do you think it will

work? Does it work for American terrorism? (Waco, Oklahoma city,

the anthrax letters?).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

At 03:20 PM 12/10/2003, you wrote:

>By the way, doesn't anyone remember what happened in Germany when Hitler

>convinced the parliament to democratically vote to temporarily suspend the

>constitution for four years for national security reasons in order to combat

the

>supposed terrorist threat?

As I recall, wasn't that the bombing of the Reichtstag? Which in fact

wasn't even DONE by terrorists, but it made a great excuse. Said strategy

was emulated in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. One supposedly bombed

ship got thousands of GI's wounded and killed and made crazy.

> Did it occur to anyone that that temporary suspension

>of the constitution for national security reasons did a lot more harm to the

>world than the threat of communist terrorists at the time ever did or could

>have done?

>

>Chris

It occurs to me a lot .... I had family members who lived through it,

and I always wondered how *I* would react, in the same situation.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 2:52:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Terrorists have been around forever -- and will be. I grew up with

> the LA gangs, which are a kind of terrorist too.

At the risk of appearing to take the ridiculous position of supporting gang

violence, I was listening to some " gangsta rap " the other day and pondering on

the sociological difference between gangs and governments.

I think if you were to ask some of the folks that live in the areas where

these gangs flourish, the cops are terrorists. And, well, they often are in

some

contexts. If you read some of Elbridge Cleaver's writings you can see his

conception of Black Panthers as sort of a counter-terrorist army that sought to

defend the local territory from invading terrorist police gangs that would

daily kill children, etc.

So in some sense gangs are just competing governments? In our areas this

seems absurd because, relatively, the government is working very well. But in

some areas it's not...

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 3:06:07 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> As I recall, wasn't that the bombing of the Reichtstag? Which in fact

> wasn't even DONE by terrorists, but it made a great excuse. Said strategy

> was emulated in the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. One supposedly bombed

> ship got thousands of GI's wounded and killed and made crazy.

Yes, it's believed to be fraudulent. That's not to say that the communists

never committed terrorism or wouldn't have. And frankly, aside from historical

interest, it's almost irrelevant, because a government seeking to increase

its power can 1)fake a terrorist attack 2)deliberately allow a terrorist attack

they knew about beforehand or 3)have, by total accident, a coincident

terrorist attack that they take advantage of. Clearly the 11 million people

Hitler

killed were worse than the burnging of the Reichstag, even assuming the

unliklihood that communists were involved.

In the US there *was* terrorism by anarchists, true terrorism, and they were

also framed at times. For example, one anarchist shot McKinley in the face

for his handling of the labor movement. Some of the anarchists got exiled, and

some of them got hung, but we never had " martial law " or national security

emergencies to change our form of governance termporarily, hence we took a

different course than germany.

Chris

[Guest guest]

I hope you are kidding! Ever read the ingredient list?

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Yea, that's the stuff. It's so great, almost like the real thing, only

better.

Michele

----- Original Message -----

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

..

Oh, do you mean Cofee Mate? I've been trying to reduce my intake of

saturated fat lately in an effort to prevent heart disease and cancer (I'm

getting

older, and will be 22 in several weeks), so I picked this up because it

seemed to

be high in a variety of nutrients that I've been otherwise, in my

estimation,

lacking in my diet, such as partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, soybean

and

canola oil, aluminum (in the highly absorbable form of sodium

aluminosilicate), artificial flavors, and colorings.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/11/03 10:34:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> That's

> why I keep saying you can't have a power vaccum. If

> we don't have a strong national gov't, we will get

> " local warlords " of some sort.

That seems to ignore a whole lot of history to the contrary, including the

history of New England.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>So in some sense gangs are just competing governments? In our areas this

>seems absurd because, relatively, the government is working very well. But in

>some areas it's not...

>

>Chris

My experience with gangs is that they are also competing

tribes and families. If a kid has a totally dysfunctional family

(and in that area, many do) then they " live " with the gang.

They have income (from selling drugs) and structure and

purpose in life. The fact they also shoot each other

a lot is unfortunate ... but really, if someone could harness

the gangs for " good " it would be a wonderful thing.

And yeah, the gangs ARE government in some areas, I think.

Basically for human beings, where no government exists,

groups of males tend to form gangs (call them what you

will) which eventually evolve into government. That's

why I keep saying you can't have a power vaccum. If

we don't have a strong national gov't, we will get

" local warlords " of some sort.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Over and over again in history,

>some group gets upset, starts waging low-level war ( " terrorism " to the other

>side). The bigger side gets harsher and harsher and usually loses. Witness

>the revolution of 1776, for instance. Or the " war on drugs " . Or the crackdown

>on Christians by the Romans.

>

>

>---Hmm, these groups were all terrorists???

In the eyes of the established government, yes. Terrorism is a weird thing ...

the people DOING it think they are heros, and if they win, history may

think they were heros too. Climbing abord a ship and stealing kegs of

cider and dumping bales of tea overboard would be called terrorism

today (though they didn't kill anyone afaik). Christianity -- not aknowledging

Cesar as " head god " was traitorous to the Romans. Drug users

aren't terrorists, no, but the " crackdown " part applies.

>

>----Gee, I wish I had more time to respond to this one and have this

discussion. There were terrorist attacks during Clinton, and he didn't nothing,

and then we had 9/11, etc. Clinton didn't respond with force and things

escalated.

Hundreds of terrorist attacks were averted during the Clinton years. The CIA did

a LOT and managed to avoid any attacks during the Millenium celebration, though

many were planned. No one believed at the time that bombing the Middle East

would avert terrorism ... and frankly, a lot of people doubt it today, which was

my point. It is more likely that bombs (which tend to kill civilans and take out

power grids) are more likely to cause long-term festering anti-Americanism and

MORE terrorism in the long run. There is no historical reason to believe that

harsh measures will do anything other than escalate terrorism. But no one will

get rid of it totally.

Now, giving people like Saddam biological weapons and such was probably not a

very good idea on our part and the fact that most terrorists are armed by US

would be a good place to stop high-tech terrorism. Like the 9/11 group used

someone else's airplane, one notes. The Anthrax came from a US lab. We are

currently starting new research into biological weaponry, and one wonders how

secure those labs really are, and why we want to invent new nastier biologicals

in the first place.

>Like I said, I just don't have the time to get into this and give good

responses (I hate to say things without info to back it up). I just think

stopping Saddium Hussien and whoever is next is a good idea. [sorry for the

lame excuse, having 7 kids I homeschool does make it pretty hard for me to do

what I really want: play on the computer and discuss politics ]

Unfortunately, that is the boat most Americans are in ... no time to research so

whatever the gov't is doing must be a good idea. The fact we PUT Saddam into

power in the first place and gave him plenty of weapons says something about the

gov'ts ability to make good decisions! Maybe one of your homeschool research

studies should be " how to keep tabs on the gov't and what to do when they are on

the wrong track " .

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

I didn't notice the smiley face. ; ( Sorry.

Glad you cleared up for me as I thought it funny you would belong to this

list and promote phony phood.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

Didn't I put a smiley face after?? <G> It's totally gross. But my in-laws

like fake food.

Michele

RE: Re: OT: terrorism (funny)

I hope you are kidding! Ever read the ingredient list?

Judith Alta

[Guest guest]

>Hey now, I didn't say I don't care or that I don't know or that I don't spend

lots of spare time listening, reading, learning, studying these things. I only

said I don't have time to make sure I'm not spouting a bunch of half truths over

the email. I have lots of opinions but I'm not going to say a bunch of stuff

with " I heard it somewhere " . Not accusing anyone, I just am big on citing

sources when I say something. I used to drive my dh crazy with " where did you

hear that " .

>

>Michele

Sorry, that sounded sarcastic and I meant it seriously. I talk to so many

people who tell me they just don't have time for or care about

" politics " . Then they gripe about this or that law or decision. So I

think people SHOULD study the issues (whether or not they spout).

If you study the issues, then great, you are a good role model for the

kids!

I don't quote sources here because the sources are so

divided politically that I can't think of one that everyone here would

accept. I mean, whether you quote Chomsky or Limbaugh ...

-- Heidi