Legal Reprisals Against The Grey Lady?

ooohhh…the venom…

I wasn’t questioning the legality of the program. Nor did I see any true op info of use ion the link provided by your link. Maybe it was a bad link, maybe it had been “cleansed”. I can’t say.

It appears that your biggest beef (and I’m not saying it isn’t warranted) is the fact that the Times (East & West) is publishing this so called Classified info. To that I say the following: WHERE IS THIS INFO COMING FROM, AND WHY AREN’T HEADS ROLLING TO STOP IT? You may disagree with the ideals of those at both times, however because of them, you know that THEY knew something they shouldn’t have. The following then should also be considered true: OTHERS also inevitably knew things they shouldn’t have. Their loose lips exposes that a leak exists, which is what many have been screaming about for a while.

Nothing is knee-jerk. I have indeed calculated the risks, and found them to be not worth worrying about, REGARDLESS of where I live. The reason is because for the most part, it is out of my control. You have calculated your risks, and while I don’t agree with your conclusion (Philly? sure it’s got the bell and the hall, but the other “targets” are of lower value then say, Sears Tower, Golden Gate, Etc) you have decided that instead of guaranteeing protection of your family by MOVING (yes, that’s harsh, but it cannot be denied that your arguement goes away if you move) you want the government to pick up the risk, and you are willing to go along with certain things to see that through.

I am going to now make a sweeping analogy, which you will of course use against me:

In essence, you would have more SECURITY for YOU paid for by less freedoms for ME. I am not subject to the SAME risk as you, yet I would be subject to the same reduction in freedoms as you. So. I will go along with that, if you will agree to directly contribute to my Home Owners Insurance, as I have chosen to live in a slightly more “active” weather area then you.

Now is where I am going to make this a little political ( you started it). All of you like-minded folk who claim we are under constant threat and could be attacked every minute are lead by the VERY SAME folk who want office and PLANY safety left up to the invisible hand. Imagine yourself oogling the cars in the parking lot of that pickel factory of yours, and lo and behold, it blows up. You survive, but you lost your shins and are now 4 feet tall (and call everyone bobby). You and your ilk would NEVER say “I knew it!”. We as a society have accepted far worse from our companies and their negligence, and when those companies are held to account in the courts, your party poo-poos the settlements as excessive (yes, many seam excessive, to those of us who WEREN’T blown up).

What’s my point? We have ALWAYS been under threat. Be it disease, war, weather, or machines, there is no SAFE place – never has been. We accept the fact that a rock could fall from the sky and hurt us, even though we think we should be able to prevent that. Same with living near volcanoes or shorelines. AND TERRORISM.

After all, if we give up what we hold dear, then they win ™.

I don’t take it personally, at least in the sense that I don’t see you as any less of a person, or a friend. You are in my inner circle precisely BECAUSE of your passion and fire . In fact, I think it is fairly safe to say that I have successfully interacted with and surrounded myself with people who hold different opinions then myself, and in general are very different then me. It keeps me honest, and I feel makes me a better person.

I don’t want to agree with you all of the time. I don’t want to see things the same way you do. Where’s the fun in that?

For the record, I didn’t think your response was that bad. Just sharp. In the same way some (ok, probably many) of my responses have been. You were not un-civil, and that is most important. I would still weclome you into my cabinet of the Purple People…

Now then.

Your response to my previous diatribe?

BUMP…