Once the people who did this are found, and the country that hides them, both should be destroyed. People thought the Israelis were extreme when they blew up a hijacked plane full of Israeli civilians on the runway rather than negotiate with the hijackers, however no-one has since hijacked an Israeli plane. If people are made aware that attacks on the west will result in their own destruction, they will think twice before doing such barbarous actions.

Be more careful about letting people from other countries out of this one. There should be a lot more security at airports and all points of entry into our country.

A mixture of things, which can be divided into three categories: defensive measures, bringing terrorists to justice and reducing the threat.

Security on internal flights is one obvious point; compared to here in Europe it seems as if US airlines and airports just don't care about checking people and baggage. Also, it's now obvious that the WTC wasn't capable of surviving an aircraft impact - although the architects said it was. This will obviously have to be taken into consideration in any future skyscraper designs.

Improved intelligence is going to be necessary, especially if the terrorists in this case are going to be brought to justice. In the past, there has been a tendency to leap to conclusions (eg, when the Oklahoma bomb was blamed on Islamic groups) and take retributive action that hasn't actually hit the right target. Before going in with the gunships, the US needs to make sure that they actually know who is responsible and where they are. Just attacking a country (such as Afghanistan) where the suspects are believed to be hiding isn't going to achieve anything - quite apart from the fact that killing loads more civilians isn't morally justifiable, it won't work unless you can actually target the right place with sufficient precision.

Finally, America needs to give serious thought as to why so many other countries hate it. Standing up for what is right is one thing, but a lot of American foreign policy seems, from the outside, to be simple imperialism. It's time for the rich countries of the world - including the US - to realise that they have a responsibility to the poorer nations of the world, and start helping others to prosper instead of closing their markets with protectionism and closing their borders with racist immigration policies.

There's nothing you can do against lunatics.

I think msgman is brave to say the thing that we haven't been hearing yet-- we have to look at why we are hated and consider our own behavior in all this. ("We" the Americans, and also "we" the Western World). The talks of "wiping them out," assumes an "us and them" mentality which will not help anyone.

BTW, though, msgman, the towers apparently were built to withstand a 707 crashing into them, it's just that 20 years have past since then and planes (and their fuel capacity) have increased. Though, too, I bet they were designing for an accidental collision, and not for two collisions right after one another. BUT that all goes to show that defensive architectural design can never "out-smart" offensive planning, because the attackers always have the last word. I think that may also go for policy designers-- you cannot make an airport security program that will think of everything, you have to make it less likely that anyone would *want* to do something like that.

I just want to point out that I'm not particularly attacking America in my comments - I think that much of my criticisms apply to Western Europe as well. The EU is just as protectionist, if not more so, than the US, and we don't have anything to brag about when it comes to how we've treated refugees and immigrants. But I think we've possibly been less arrogant than the US, mostly because as individual countries we're all a lot smaller. But I can foresee the EU becoming just as much a target as the US in future, unless we learn how to deal with terrorism a lot better.

To prevent this sort of attack, I suppose security for internal flights should have been better. I've never been to the US but I have heard that the only id you need to board a flight is a driver's license. But who could have predicted an attack like this?

As for terrorism in general? I realy don't know how it could be prevented. I suppose better intelligence is required.

I understand. I don't think you attacked anyone. This is certainly not a time for, nor is anyone advocating "blaming the victim," nor was I doing that, nor did I feel that you were doing that. It's just a good point, or maybe a few days from now will be a good point, to reflect on what caused this, from points of view other than our own. Where do you live, anyway?

I'm in the UK. I work in Cambridge.

Some things you just can't stop.

I hope and pray that whomever was responsible for what happened yesterday ( and is still happening) is brought to justice. Maybe when people see that we are not powerless against them, they will leave us alone. I know there will be stricter regulations about what people can take on board a plane and things like that. I wish I had a solution. How can we better protect ourselves without losing the very freedoms that the terrorists are attacking?

How is the mood there, today?

Subdued is probably the best word. I work for an ISP, so yesterday we had to deal with the fact that a lot of our transatlantic traffic wasn't working very well (it still isn't), and we had a lot of calls from customers wanting to know what was wrong (amazingly, some of them hadn't seen the news. Some of them had, but didn't care - we had one customer complaining that our contingency plans were inadequate and that we owed him compensation for disruption to service).

Most of yesterday afternoon (9.00am New York time is 2.00pm UK time) was spent trying to keep up with the news - all the major news website were down because of the load, but we have the advantage on some of them of being able to bypass the public servers and see the internal systems. And, this being the Internet, rumours were flying around like crazy.

It's difficult here to know what to think. I don't know anyone who would have been in New York (although one member of a mailing list that I moderate said that his father works in the WTC and is still missing), so it's hard to feel anything personally. There's a bit of a feeling that it's all happening in a faraway country and that we're not affected - which, in a sense, is true, but it's also untrue. It's the kind of shock you feel when you witness a road accident or something - you know that you're not directly involved, but you can't help feeling involved despite that.

I think a lot of people in the UK are genuinely scared that the US is going to go OTT in revenge attacks and risk triggering another world war - that's been expressed on several mailing lists and newsgroups that I read. But most people are also fully supportive of the US in the need to take some kind of action against the terrorists. But, mostly, people just don't know how to react.

It almost seems like this attack had some insider help. We should tighten up our immigration policies. Too many people are allowed in this country without strict regulations. That's just my opinion and what I've heard though.

I think a lot of people in the US are afraid of the same OTT reaction, too... I wish I could reassure you

*shrugs* I don't know if they can be prevented. Many of these people are raised to believe that if they die doing something like this, they will be sent straight to heaven and God will reward them. I don't know if you can stop somebody who is willing and ready to die to perform such a task.

The people behind the attacks, the ones who run the terrorist groups, don't commit suicide. They recruit weak and vulnerable members of their society, in much the same way that cults recruit weak and vulnerable members of ours, and then brainwash them into killing themselves for the cause. So if we can deal with the people behind the terrorist groups, then we can do something about it.

The difficulty, of course, is finding the people behind these groups.

Really? I heard that people of some cultures like, line up to do this practically.

We should have highly trained guards on airplanes.

I agree with your first post, including the last paragraph, and I am American.

No, they don't. That's one of the myths that's fostered by western ignorance and media misreporting. It's true that most non-western cultures are far less individual-centred than we are, and so to them a suicide attack isn't quite as terrible as we would consider it. But it's still the case that most people don't want to kill themselves, and don't want to die for a cause.

I don't know. Right now on CNN they're blabbing about how they're not going to allow knives anymore on airplanes. That's about as useful as slapping "please stab me" signs on everybody. It's been proved that even with the strictest safety measures, people can put a bomb on a plane. We are so vulnerable, all of us. And why? Because there is no limit to how corrupt a human mind can be. We have proof from the horrific acts yesterday.

Oh.

Unfortunately, tightened security in most aspects of our day-to-day lives is the appropriate first step. That includes prohibitions on where and when Americans can move around.

In addition to such limitations on movement would be the random and routine "checks" on what authorities might deem to be "suspicious activities", which may turn out to be quite normal.

It will be a difficult transition for most Americans who are used to coming and going as they please.

Because I have lived in foreign countries for most of the past 20 years, I am used to such things. Including the abuses that come with such tightened security.

It will be hard on most Americans to discover they can no longer be as "free" as they were.

At this point, I don't have any real answers. Some suggestions (which have probably been implemented anyway), but no real answers.

I second that.

i don't know and that scares me........ i don't know if we can do more than we do without losing our freedom. it was said a number of times on tv yesterday, that we as a nation really don't know how many attacks are stopped before they happen each year because nothing is ever said about it. our government doesn't want to reveal their intelligence......... but when they don't catch something it is horrific......

I think the loss of freedom you suggest would make us less secure overall. I think it also means the terrorists would have won.

From the new security rules that are coming out of the FAA, they apparently think that making people more helpless will make them safer. It's never worked in the past so I guess that's just reason to try the same thing even more.

Whether this had happened or not, we should (but of course won't) stop supporting Israel.

Targeting one supposed leader like Osama bin Laden or a few individuals involved in this particular act will do no good; more like them will spring up immediately from the same soil.

We need to occupy and divide Afghanistan, like we did with Germany after WWII, and crush any uprisings swiftly.

We should tell our supposed ally countries to put up or shut up. Words of condolence are irrelevant; if they truly support us they will participate in military action with us.

We should obviously review our security policy and technology, and then hire people with IQs higher than gerbils to implement it. People who at least have a conception that there are other weapons than guns.
Technology should be developed and implemented so that we can control a hijacked plane from the ground.

I'm predicting we won't do most of this. We may punish a few individuals, but the root causes will not be adequately addressed, we will go back to thinking we're invincible, and something as bad or worse will happen again in a few years.

More surveillance and security is not the answer. Look at all the security that happens in grade schools and yet there is more violence and weaponry than before they put up the security. Also, look how much security failed in this circumstance. Phone surveillance, sattelite surveillance, airport data, airport security, FAA coordination, armed services integration, etc. etc.
After the planes left their flight plans, why didn't we veer them down with some f-16s? When the buildings were hit, why didn't we send coast guard choppers to evacuate the upper floors?
I'm sure those responsible were angered by the news vocabulary. As I imagine they imagine it, they were attacking global military capitalist exploitation, and then it's announced that our 'freedom' is being attacked. The targets (not counting the tragic human loss) were the apparatus that monitors every moment of our being to sell us gadgets and make sure we aren't mad bombers. If you thought freedom was in jeopardy now, just wait till you have to submit face recognition at every street corner. I doubt it was an attack against 'America' anyhow.
Global participatory democracy would help a lot, but there will always be people left out, for instance those who bombed abortion clinics because their sentiment wasn't in the legal majority. That could further be alleviated by creating a return to geographic cultural pockets. People who want to live in an abortion free community can do so without insisting the rest of the global confederation of tribes do so. That they are called 'cowards' by a nation that attacks with armored tanks and missles seems ironic. I fail to see the difference. The united states pioneered guerilla warfare. The british marched in musket ranks while the americans picked them off with rifles from behind trees.
I for one would not like to see the US become a police state. Such efforts have already failed. If the terrorists had had media time instead, they would have either gained support for their (non-militaristic) views, or found that their position has no support, at which point they would hopefully realize that their position is best kept to themselves, instead of resorting to terrorism to get their position broadcast.
Live and let live.
I wouldn't mind if ALL information was public. I myself post all my financial records and appointment calendar on my website. Likewise, I would like to see the WMF, the Pentagon, and any likely terrorists all on live sattelite feed. The liklihood of violence and the need for it are reduced if everyone knows what everyone is doing. I think it's astoundingly unfortunate what happened, but who of you even understand why the terrorists chose their particular targets. They didn't bomb the statue of liberty. For those of you who think the goal was to kill people, keep in mind the target time was before many offices had even opened, not hours later. Even the christian bible teaches 'thou shalt not charge interest on loans.'
Pray for a world where people don't have to fear.

The dream I had just before this event was exactly about the suicide issue you speak of; I was Jesus in religious battle (in a near passive-agressive) state, not feeling a thing, and ready to prove my beliefs by battling without blinking an eye even as the organs were falling from my torso. In the dream I had a complete turn-around and an opening of my heart as I realized that my sacrifice did not change the world, that I had missed the love present in the physical realm, and had the deepest regrets. I was resurrected after being only able to cry about the continuing tragedy amongst the people as my child-like loving adherants waited for help from my useless dying body. Asking God that what I had done be forgiven, my body was reconstructed. Because of this dream, I can understand the mindset of suicidal zealots. I wish they could have had the complete dream before they set flight.

Not just the U.S., but every country.

There's not much that can be done. If people are willing to go on suicide missions, that can't be stopped. These people have proved thier craftiness and intellegence. We cannot stop people from strapping bombs on their person and driving in highly populated areas, well, there's nothing to do. They're already willing to die, what could we possibly do to threaten them?

I would have to say that terrorism won, if we respond by placing ourselves under street arrest.

Folks were wondering if you were OK.

More surveillance and security is not the answer

Not necessarily more security, but better security.

After the planes left their flight plans, why didn't we veer them down with some f-16s?

Because at the time, we surely assumed the highjackers would land somewhere and make demands. Are you suggesting that immediately after noticing the planes diverging, we should have endangered innocent American lives, just on the off-chance the highjackers were on a suicide mission??! What if we were wrong and we crashed a plane full of innocent civilians for no reason? By the time we could be certain what was going on, it was too late to do anything about it.

I wouldn't mind if ALL information was public.

You're welcome to post your information, but don't speak for others. Personally, I know firsthand one of the ill effects of information in the wrong hands, after having spent numerous hours clearing up a case of attempted identity theft.

If the terrorists had had media time instead, they would have either gained support for their (non-militaristic) views, or found that their position has no support, at which point they would hopefully realize that their position is best kept to themselves, instead of resorting to terrorism to get their position broadcast.

Oh My Goddess. And then let's all sit down to tea together, shall we??? The concept that these people would say "Oh, ok, well most people don't agree with us, so we'll stop" is almost as surreal as the attacks themselves. I'm sure it's Osama and his crew, and they've HAD plenty of media time. They've made their views well-known. They want them implemented, not just known.

People who want to live in an abortion free community can do so without insisting the rest of the global confederation of tribes do so

I like your idea of allowing communities with such strong beliefs to live by these beliefs in their own corner of the world, neither imposing their beliefs on anyone nor having beliefs imposed on them. In this situation, however, they were not allowed to do that. Jews forcibly stole a portion of their corner of the world away, provoking them. We supported this. We are to some extent to blame for our own predicament.

Yep. We're worried about Barry's brother and his wife, who are a cop and and EMT, respectively, but so far, so good.
Buildings are STILL collapsing.
I can't believe this happened right in my backyard.
Okay, that's a lie, New York is an even more a target than D.C., but... it's still incomprehensible.
So many military planes flying overhead.

The people in The USA should chant:

HARE KRISHNA
HARE KRISHNA
KRISHNA KRISHNA
HARE HARE

HARE RAMA
HARE RAMA
RAMA RAMA
HARE HARE

Stop provoking the terrorists.

I'm serious.

I admire your comments. In all of the surveys on this topic you have spoken clearly and wisely. Thanks.

Not necessarily more security, but better security.
Same thing. We responded to the last wtc bombing by increasing surveillance to include pens and shoelaces. It didn't work. The only affect is that our computers are slower. If people are going to cause harm, they will. Karma is the only answer.

After the planes left their flight plans, why didn't we veer them down with some f-16s?
Because at the time, we surely assumed the highjackers would land somewhere and make demands. Are you suggesting that immediately after noticing the planes diverging, we should have endangered innocent American lives, just on the off-chance the highjackers were on a suicide mission??! What if we were wrong and we crashed a plane full of innocent civilians for no reason? By the time we could be certain what was going on, it was too late to do anything about it.
We could have forced a landing. Surely they had radios. If they weren't willing to be forced to land, we could have presumed they were suicidal anyhow, and kept them away from populated targets. If a gunman entered your house, you'd take action if they started heading right for the children's room.

ALL information public..
You would have only hackers, secret self-interested businesses, and national security make the decisions on how the publics life is administrated? What about democracy?

If the terrorists had had media time instead, they would have either gained support for their (non-militaristic) views, or found that their position has no support, at which point they would hopefully realize that their position is best kept to themselves, instead of resorting to terrorism to get their position
broadcast.
Oh My Goddess. And then let's all sit down to tea together, shall we??? The concept that these people would say "Oh, ok, well most people don't agree with us, so we'll stop" is almost as surreal as the attacks themselves. I'm sure it's Osama and his crew, and they've HAD plenty of media time. They've made their views well-known. They want them implemented, not just known.
I don't know what Bin Laden's (or whatever organization was involved) position is. I certainly didn't see one moment of explanation of it in several hours of newscast, just as no one in the public was informed of the position of Kazinski or McVeigh.
These people might have been senators if they hadn't predetermined that the infrastructure had already precluded broadcasting their views into policy.

STILL?
more life experience to write about I guess. chin up. love.

I would rather have a few businesses and branches of the government know a little bit about me than for everyone (neighbors, co-workers etc) to know everything about where I am going and what I am doing. What's the point in that?

I don't think it would decrease people's need to get violent, either. As long as we have anger, we will have people getting violent, no matter who knows what they're up to.

I'm biased though. I get a kick out of people not knowing what I am doing, but wondering.

I'm clueless!!!! I'm just really sad & upset about this whole thing.I was in tears yesterday,today I'm just irritated by the scenes of the airplanes over & over again.Some people are really,REALLY sick!!! I'm so bummed out!

Support for Israel was decreasing but now there's no way we can drop it. If we did, all the potential terrorists in the world would strike thinking they would also get what they wanted.

What can you do...It's not something you can really plan for or prevent because it is so random and clever. I do not want to give up my freedoms and live in fear.

nothing more then they already are, because as they said you don't know when or where it will happen next.

Attacks against whom? America? Or everywhere?

1st of all, America and such countries of "superior" economies should stay home and fix their own problems before meddling in everyone else's. If you can mind your own business than you don't make enemies! Our own children are shooting their schoolmates in schools; why are we all so shocked about the REST of the planet's actions against one and other when we have this going on at home? We have our own problems. As long as America and the Western world consider themselves as the "police" of the planet, we will be victimized in return... Let's stay home and we will not be stepping on anyone's toes.
That should help!

True enough.
There are probably a ton of reasons they have against us that might not be if we just left them alone. Even people here rally against the IMF policies. It's still not clear if their target was the US or international capitalism and western behavior. For that matter it could have even been (though quite unlikely) a competing economic concern, or any other political enemy of the US. My dream suggests to me that it was planned in a mid-east earthen building though.

Yes, they terrorist have won...America will never be the same. We now live in daily fear as do the residences of the mid-east.

"Self-imposed house arrest", like it or not, will be the legislative result of this attack. And just as I said, Americans will have a very difficult time accepting this reduced level of freedom. Your comment supports that, as a gut reaction that restricted freedoms are somehow a "bad" thing. ABUSE of freedoms is the bad thing. We live in an abusive world.

No, more security and better security are not the same thing. Just because we did a few showy things supposedly to stop future acts of terrorism doesn't mean we were being smart about our development or implementation of technology, and it definitely doesn't mean that we got any better at the people side of the equation. The people who are hired to implement the most important security are usually the lowest-paid, least trained, and least intelligent. The best laid security plans won't work if you rely on morons to carry them out... The "karma" explanation some people give is repulsive to me. Aside from being untrue, this particular delusion only serves to provide comfort that there is a reason and order to things, while blaming the victim... There's no way we could have forced a safe landing. And our previous experience would suggest this wasn't the thing to do. Your gunman in the house analogy is flawed. A better analogy is a gunman headed towards the children's room already carrying children, with a knife to their throats, PLUS previous experience to suggest that if we let the gunman proceed, he will make some demands and quite possibly release the children at some point in the future... You are making a straw man argument with your "You would have only hackers..." statement. That is nothing remotely like what I wrote. There is a hell of a lot of middle ground between all information being public and the scenario you describe.... STILL what?

dab: It really deeply and profoundly sucks, that one effect of this will be to increase support for Israel.

Anything can happen, so I have tons of ideas but they would all have tons of exceptions, which would have tons of exceptions. It's just too hard. I'll leave it up to the Gvt to do the thinking for me.

Externally imposed security only further encourages lack of development of self-responsibility. Society should impart love, not fear as an example to pass on to new members. With greater repression, more people will have cause to rebel against the system. Police state dictatorships with no freedom of speech, assembly , privacy, travel.. are the sort of things we were once making a stand against. To become one ourself is not the answer. At one time it was clearly understood that one was an irresponsible social anomaly bringing a gun to school. Now there's more of a 'it's ok if you don't get caught' attitude. That's what happens when society is an external imposition and not a nurtured internal understanding. I don't care to escalate the abusive world mind-set.

Some of us see see cause and order in the universe; if not we would be foolhardy to have faith in systems like karma.
People should not have faith and pride in artificial constructs like the unsinkable titanic. If we were to learn from our technical flaws yet make the same boasts, it might well still happen again.
'STILL?' referred to a prior comment that building were still collapsing. I hadn't heard that on the news at that time.
I plan to write a survey on what security measures people would find acceptable.
I do blame myself for any tragedy that occurs in my presence, although some of it is story or training, not karmic response to my actions. I can see how it is all connected. There is a flow of cause and effect that occurs in everyones life but only those with mystical consciousness notice it. Someone else commented that Israel responds to hi-jackings by blowing up the plane. I don't condone that either, but surely there must be some (weighed risk) method of altering a planes course. If it's not a fly-by-wire system and has hydraulic controls, we could have knocked out their navigation temporarily. We could have flown by with a spear gun and drained the fuel. We could have flown ahead of them with halon tanks. In a worst case scenario we could have disintegrated them the instant we saw they were aimed for a building (plenty of methods available there). I suppose that the issue was that we were clueless that the planes were being used as weapons, but surely the flight paths must have suggested such a thing.

I dont suppose there's nothing they can do.

My statement stands: Like it or not, Americans will find themselves with less freedoms in the "interest of national security". And we will be submitting to them voluntarily. Most sad, but a fact of post-attack life.

By analogy:
No one can politically take a supportable stand against MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Drivers). (and it's logical negative: reduced ability to drive about freely.)

No one can politically take a supportable stand against increased airport security (and it's logical negative: reduced ability to fly about freely.)

Year 2050 Extrapolation: travel permits, such as those already used by Saudi Arabia and the ex-USSR.

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one"
--Thomas Jefferson

I've seen so many different versions of this quote that I have no idea which one he actually said or if he ever said it at all. Regardless, it's exactly correct.

Great quote. I have never seen that one.

So, by deduction we should not change any of our laws, rules and regulations to ensure the public safety? We can go back to normal today...same airport security, same immigration checks, same open border with Canada?

You're okay with this? Ahh...have you asked your fellow Americans if they are?

Permit me to ramble just a minute about another freedom: Freedom of Speech. (While I can still exercise it.)

The Bill of Rights laid no restrictions on the Freedom of Speech. However, over the years it has been jurdically and legistlatively decided for public and individual welfare that certain restrictions apply.

One may not yell fire in a crowded theatre.
One may not publish false or slanderous statements.
One may not promote hate crimes.
One may not harass sexually.

We have even gone as far that one could get in legal trouble for making the statement to a fellow worker: "My compliments to your aerobics instructor."

These are limitations of our society on Freedom of Speech unforeseen by the founding fathers.

The USA is entering an era of further restrictions. To deny that reality is naive. It would be wonderful if we could remain as free as we had been. But we can't. I am saddened that it will occur.

Your deduction is not quite right. I think we should move towards more freedom not simply back to the way it was a week ago.

I'll quibble a little about your Freedom of Speech example. One may indeed yell fire in a crowded theater (or even a theatre). If there isn't actually a fire, you'll be prosecuted, not because you said something that's not allowed, but because you hurt people. Note the "if" at the beginning of the previous sentence, it's very important. We don't sew people's mouths shut or cut out their tongues on entering a theater, after all there may really be a fire, but we do try to educate people that they'd better be right.

I'm pretty naive but so so bad that I don't recognize that we're entering an era of further restrictions. We were moving that way before, now we're moving faster. I'm just pointing out that it's not a wise direction to go and we'll end up less secure because of it.

I disagree with your claim that we can't be free, I just agree that we won't and I am also saddened.

Nice distinction between "can't be" and "won't be"
You are right, of course.

I would take a stand against MADD if they enforced that any person starting a motor vehicle, perhaps even leaving the house to skate-board be subjected to a rigorous five minute examination of their dexterity, reaction time, and temperament. Even putting breathalyzers or competency tests into ignition systems seems to me to detract from teaching the self-responsibility that goes with driving a car, and replacing it with a system of 'if someone else says it's ok, then it's ok. I don't have to think about proper behavior'.
To be honest, I don't even believe in laws, only common sense, compassion, understanding, self-responsibility, and written guidelines from elders in situations where ethics are hard to discern. On the other hand, I'd also recommend banishing criminal types into the wastelands where they can learn to cooperate, be fed by grace, or die. There are no wastelands in this age. Still though, I would banish them to agricultural islands with no supervision where again they would exist alone and helpless or cooperate.
My vision of 2050 isn't remotely like yours. This is the age of information, preceded by industrialization, reformation, rennaissance, dark ages, greek college, pharoah god kings, etc. Look at how fast things are moving. Surely an age or two shall pass by then. I recall a few years before the Soviet Union collapsed that one political instructor of mine gave all the reasons we would see it collapse, years before the general public could envision such a thing ever happening. Western culture is in financial debt. The only thing that separates us from the USSR is that the public still believes in our system despite evidence to the contrary. A change in faith could easily have us in a dark ages by 2050. We are also on the verge of nano-technology (conscious matter). That's could about 12 years from now, after which the next 2 seconds will obsolete physical notions of reality. You sure have a steady course mapped out there Mr Brian.

I would like to see us remove all airport security, tamper-proof packaging, and fences at the edge of public cliffs that experienced climbers should be free to traverse. I do not look forward to a day where pedestrians are forced to wear safety helmets and respiratory gear so that the city can not be sued. Education, information, community involvement, responsibility of the individual is what we need, not internet control chips in our head to make sure we don't walk in front of a car.

Jefferson and Franklin are heros of mine. I'm sure they would have radically different things to say in this age, and I'm also sure it wouldn't resemble current administrations.

Unfortunately American society mentality is that it is necessary to warn people against their own stupidity. We pander to the weakest mental links. (BTW: Protect is one thing, pander is quite another.)

I know I present a dark future for freedoms, but I just look at the evidence of where we have already come from where we were.

Many of the insane legislative precautions reducing freedoms are the result of people bringing legal actions. You mentioned competency tests. Let me tell you it is already happening in many areas.

I have worked in Petrochemical plants, and you can't even get into most to deliver a pizza now-a-days unless you sit through a 30 minute safety orientation and sign a paper that you understand, will obey and will not bring suit against the company if you do something contrary to the rules.

Why? 'Cause some delivery person somewhere did something stupid like light up a cigarette inside a petrochem plant.

Check out the "Darwin Awards" webpage sometime.

I truly expect to see warning labels on food in the near future:
"Over indulgence in this produce may cause obesity and associated health risk".

Now let's get real, what person doesn't understand that if he woofs down five packages of Oreos daily that he's gonna have a weight problem.

But mark my words, we will see the labels, because some idiot will sue the cookie manufacture. I'm surprise margarine and butter don't already have such labels.

One Vonnegut story was 'Harrison Bergeron' in which to make people equal, anyone with gifts was crippled. Harrison was gifted in ballet but had weights strapped all over his body. He ripped them off on nat'l tv but was executed on the spot. His brilliant father watching tv recognized for a moment, but then the distraction-buzzer went off in his head.
Who now reads their entire labels. Competent climbers must now climb a fence or stay at the lowest common denominator. I would really like to see that sort of law suit eradicated. Intentional harm is different than unintentional negligence. I'd hate to have to pay for thicker lightbulbs because someone could break one and get shocked. I'd hate to see bottles marked 'warning, do not place on high shelves.' At the most damages should be for actual damages. Most of the things in a home can do damage in certain circumstances.
My bro read some darwin awards to me. It was like real-life Wile E Coyote; people making jet cars and flying off cliffs and such.

I read the labels before I buy food. I don't eat MSG.

So do I. It takes me forever to shop because I'm calculating how much of each ingredient must in something and comparing cost per desired constituent with other products. I don't wish to live entirely off of high fructose syrup and soybean oil which might otherwise happen. I also compare origin. Egypt for instance buys our best strawberries and sends it back as inexpensive jam. I doubt the average person reads every detail. There are a lot of things I don't eat. I avoid fat free. Usually it means 'now with less food'. Why buy margarine that's half water. It will just boil out. Eat pure food in small quantities, not pseudo food in abundance.

The US can't prevent terrorist attacks. The odds that terrorist attacks occur are dependent on variables of stupidity, social misery, overpopulation and other factors. The cheapest way to minimize the likelyhood that terrorist attacks take place is be seriously interested in what people want and give it to them, one way or another. Violent means won't work. Donating food and keeping them occupied (giving them televisions) might help a little. And doing something about the sickening population expansion might be an idea too.

Short of closing the boarders, putting armed guards everywhere,stop all contact with the outside world, they will keep on trying until there's enough of a hurt put on them that they get the message. I think Bush is right- the U.S. needs the help of all allies. As much as I utterly detest the idea of more war, I can't figure out what or who will stop it.

You commented that the US should stop supporting Israel, and I have such mixed feelings about that. Wouldn't it be really rotten of us to suddenly tell them they're on their own after more than 50 years of support? Then would we have Israeli terrorist attacks on the US?

Support them? Somewhat indirectly we put them into existence in the first place. Einstein was invited to be their president but had adopted a global anti-nationalism stance by that time. I don't think we should be in the military support business to any nation. What business is their political ideology or land resources of ours? If it was our position to defend people against their leaders, I could see that, but keep in mind that vietnam continued despite massive local protest against our own administration. The only fair democracy I can envision is one that begins with family and community concerns and extends to international events. We don't get to vote on the price of utilities or african aids medications, do we? Capitalism has replaced democracy. I don't think our founding fathers intended the creation of economic nation states that the public had little say in. Our nation started as a confederacy but eventually our bottom-up structure was replaced by a top-down structure that appeared identical. The difference is that power is now in the hand of the few. Do you think washington state could seceed from the union at this point in history without being retaliated against?

I don't think retaliation would be necessary. I don't think any of the 50 states could manage very well without aid from the federal government. I think what you're saying is that our government has gotten too big -- I agree, and I've always wondered why we worry so much about what other countries are up to. But at this point, we're in it too far in the Middle East to just back out now. What are we to do? Just say to Israel, "Okay, we realize now that our people made a mistake putting you here over 50 years ago and it's getting too hairy, so we're outta here. Good luck."??

I don't think it would be rotten personally, but I realize that it won't happen, because it would convey the message that we are backing down and the terrorists are winning.

Yes, it would look like that at this point. I don't think we should do this, but I wonder what would happen if we completely pulled out of the Middle East and just let the Islams fight it out amongst themselves. I suppose bin Laden would end up in charge of the entire region (New Arabia?) and be ready to attempt to take over the rest of the world. *sigh*

Our states rely too much on the federal gov't? Where does that power come from? Without people and the states and tapping international commerce they would have no power at all.
Israel is in a far better position than they were 100 years ago, are they not? Even parents have their children leave the house without all the wisdom and knowledge they possess. What do you suggest we have to do in the middle east? If your neighbors kids argue do you go invade their house to settle matters? If they ask to borrow a cup of sugar, fine. If your kids wish to play there, fine. If we wish to discuss parental philosophy with their parents, and they are willing to discuss too, fine.

Actually, the state of Israel has only been around since 1947. I don't know what we should do, I'm only saying what we probably SHOULDN'T do is leave them to their own devices at this point. The US helped Israel become a country, and provided them with weapons and training that has made them powerful enough to fend off all attacks by the Arab states. The peace talks are all well and good, but I can't imagine either side ever backing down. They are both too stubborn and bitter. I love the idea of world peace, but it's not going to just happen spontaneously.

The Taliban needs to be stopped. Do you know that they are enforcing extreme old-fashioned versions of Islamic law in Afghanistan? They are just horrible to the women and girls. They are not allowed to leave their homes without a male relative, they aren't allowed to have jobs or attend schools, they are not allowed to be examined by a male doctor, but the female doctors are not allowed to work, so many women have untreated health problems. Suspected adulterers have been stoned to death in the streets, and they have gone back to chopping off the hands of a thief. It is truly barbaric. Do you really think the US should let that sort of thing happen? I know you get involved if you think your neighbor children are being hurt...

1947. My point exactly. They are doing much better than a century ago.
It's atrcocious what happens there. and you called it correctly, I do intervene. But I have not even yelled, just solemnly expressed my views. What ultimately worked was asking god to take care of it. The result was their eviction. I still send prayers their way occasionally. I raised my own children without once punishing them, and they are extremely responsible and considerate. Carrying a bigger stick is no sort of example. People should learn not to live in fear. Unfortunately that requires faith.

You would not like to pay for thicker light bulbs...but I do not like paying for the additional insurance and cost of package disclaimers that we already absorb because someone might sue the light bulb manufacturer. We are already paying the price for other people's stupidity.

Relating all this back to the limitation of Freedoms: Do you think that the increase airport security we will be seeing will be for free?
Airplane ticket costs will rise as they pay increased insurance. Local taxes will go up in order to provided state and local airpórt security. Airport and boarding taxes will be imposed.

Less free and less wealthy all due to the flight paths of three planes.

My $1000 bicycle spends a couple hundred hours a year unlocked in front of supermarkets and such. I do not wish to pay for disclaimers and insurance either. Crime as a percentage of the populace was no less in earlier times. A dozen times US nuclear weapons have accidentally been launched on our own turf, but by God's grace, none of them went off. Security belongs in god's hands. We should turn our concerns to love for our neighbors.

It would have to be the world working together, helping each other to stop the terrorist attacks.