I was listening to Thom Hartmann this morning on KPOJ's Air America. Hartmann, the host, had on Oregon governor Ted Kulongoski for an interview. Kulongoski said in repsonse of what to do now after the new bombings, "... the way you mitigate it is by understanding why they hate us..." and "... The United States must negotiate with the insurgence in good peace...". Later Hartmann had a former CIA guest on the show who said ..."we must know why they hate us." This is just like Carl Rove said! What ever happened to wanting to remove this terrorist scum from the surface of the Earth? We can't go on not responding to terrorism like we did in the 90's.

My first thoughts were, we've got to get rid of this president

Telling reaction. My first thoughts were, how horrible for those people.

A couple minutes later I thought, we've got to get rid of light rail.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/07/us.response/index.html

I was listening to cricket on the BBC 5Live internet broadcast (good even with dial-up) and they had a one minute bulletin. It was nice to hear sports commentators not try to act like political commentators, and they kept the talk to the match. If you wanted to hear about the bombings, you could turn to the regular news. The English lads really dismantled the world's best one-day side, BTW. One technical aside- the bombings happened at 8:50 am BST, or British Summer Time, the local time. That would be 7:50 GMT. They fall back to GMT in the fall, but on a different day than we do. There was a debate a few years back about getting rid of "summer time", and the standard response was "let's get rid of winter time".

yeah Pancho...say goodbye to Fairless Square. Homeland Security has been eyeballing that badboy all year.

<h1></h1>

I rejoice you say your friends were none of them injured, Rachael. As 'we are the world,' however, a difference between mine and yours dissolves from view in seeing 'us and ours' is not safe, all's not well today here, uno mundo, where we are.

And in "what are we going to do about it?," the first step where feet and minds remain cemented is to d'accord (apres detente) in defining what "it" is and which direction to go to be "about" it. Accord begins from arraying the options and proceeds toward agreeing in one.

In detente, party of the first part presents two options and nominates one, while party of the second part presents but one option and can nominate it only while being devoid in all others. There is a (admittedly intemperate) presentation of a second option for defining 'it,' and when seen, if agreeably considered then can be, the direction of the way thinking can go that's "about" it.

In other words, some see plural possible sources of today's violence, and would discuss among those. Others see only one source, as they know, and can look no more -- whether stopped by anger toward whomever contradicts them, (doubting the messenger),or by incapacity for more, (doubting extending self) -- and would not discuss possibilities. Here, stuck, "it" remains, not gone "about," still not "figured" out, until all parties consider all possibilities.

And, in ending, some beginning links to concrete points obscured in the above vagueness. Whereas our own might misbehave is a possibility denied: Leftist denial of 9/11 truth. Whereas there exists additional 'definition' seen (though ugly): Turn on your video recorders, "terrorists" have hit London, where anger in adulteration blares "Get a grip. Take the medication. Consider getting a basic education. But most of all, shut the fek up unless you can produce some sort of cogent argument or evidence." Whereas cogent evidence is presented and does constitute a basic education for it: THE SECRET TEAM,The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World, in discovering the derivation and use of such terms as 'false-flag,' 'cut-out,' 'psy-op,' and more, used in describing "possibilities" unseen by those devoid of such descriptive terms in their vocabulary syllabus. Now, therefore, all things are possible. To consider.

Glad for you again, Rachael.

<h1></h1>

<h1></h1>

I apologize for the multiple posts. Typepad cantankerousness I usually can finesse I couldn't. Maybe admin (Kari) could do us all a favor and prune the extras into the crapper.

<h1></h1>

I really have no answers, but I can look at a nation who tried the security route that we are in the process of trying; Israel. Didn't exactly work and that nation only has to protect a small area. We have to figure out another way or risk losing the freedoms from within and allowing these religious scum bags to win.

So much for the specious neocon mantra regarding the effectiveness of this 'War on Terror', 'It's been 4 years since we've been attacked, we must be winning!' Please. And the fire hydrant outside my apartment protects my place from being robbed. Don't believe so? Prove that it doesn't.

P.s. I wonder if the IOC is having second thoughts.

it seems to be a universal Typepad problem...all the Typepad sites i've been to today have been the same way.

Maybe Portland should reconsider its position with regard to the JTTF. I shudder to think about something like this happening on one of our MAX trains.

Now there's an anti-terrorism strategy that might work: no more U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Huh, wonder why the President's people haven't thought of that?

Can't take Blues' criticisms seriously on this issue anymore since most of you oppose most domestic oil drilling (ANWAR) and development of adequate alternative energy sources (nuclear).

If we get rid of fareless square or light rail, we're just letting the terrorists win.

More light rail! Take that Al-Qaeda!

I dunno. The idea that we should continue to expand patterns of public investment to promote denser urban living needs to be questioned when it is clear that such efforts make us easier targets of terrorism.

The "we're not going to change our lifestyle to reduce the risks of terrorism" position is tempting rhetoric, but would you apply it to other risky choices?

One might similarly argue that if people start practicing safer sex then they're just letting the HIV virus win.

Everyone go bareback! Take that AIDS!

Within a few hours of the London bombing, the simpering apologists of Little Beirut leaped to action, blaming everyone, anyone - Bush, Cheney, America's foreign policy, - for the attack except, of course, the people who actually triggered the explosions. Our liberal Fifth Column of Portland stands vigilant to defend the terrorists' rights of self-expression and outrage. "Sure, the bombing was wrong," they will say. "But America forced their hand...Bush made them do it." Sadly, the moral compass of our liberal community lies broken on the ground, decayed and decrepit from constant and intentional disuse.

It is a small comfort to me that Portland will never be attacked by terrorists. Even the most hardened jihadist would know better than to look a gift horse in the mouth and risk losing the best propaganda machine this side of al-Jazeera. Portland, enjoy the relative safety your liberals have purchased for you. Across the globe, it is being bought with the blood and sacrifice of brave men and women. Here in Portland, the price was a few fervent words of appeasement and the unflinching ability to look the other way in a moral crisis.

Dan, please don't equate all liberals/Dems with the left-wing radicals in Portland. They're just a very vocal minority.

This proud, patriotic Dem wants to see Osama's head on a f-----g stake.

Besides, if we completely used ANWR it would reduce US foreign imports by 25% for eight years (source: http://www.azgs.az.gov/Winter2001.htm). Not much of a long term solution, is it?

Of course it isn't THE long term solution, but it may be part of one. Clearly, if it reduces our short term reliance on Middle Eastern oil we're better off for it. A lot can happen in eight years.

If it can buy us extra time for making a smoother transition to using alternative energy sources, then we should start drilling - ASAP!

Dan Estes wrote: "Sadly, the moral compass of our liberal community lies broken on the ground, decayed and decrepit from constant and intentional disuse."

This rhetoric rivals my own. I'm sure that guy from Beaverton would be excited to read this dramatic oratory. Put your hand on your lapel why you say things like this and keep a stiff upper lip, Dan!

The moral compass was broken when we condone torture because the other guy is doing it too! How grade school is that justification. We had the world on our side after 9/11 because it appeared unprovoked. Now, with England in Iraq with us, it's fair game. Brutal assessment to be sure, but fair game.

Nice to see that terrorism has now been justified and defended here. A bomb in a trash bin, bus or train station is not "fair game". It sure as hell isn't "fair", and I'd be hard-pressed to call it a "game", either. I know most of you folks don't like Bush, the Bush family, or the Bush Administration. You probably don't even eat Bush's Baked Beans anymore, just like I did without ketchup for a few months back in 2004. But you don't have to climb into bed with terrorists just because they hate Bush too. That doesn't make you right, it just makes you desperate. You can still hate Bush without rationalizing the bombing of innocent bystanders. There are plenty of reasons to be a Democrat and no one would begrudge you that choice. But when did we become afraid to clearly identify right and wrong? Dust off the ol' moral compass.

Climbing into bed with terrorists would be emulating them by using torture. It shows there are sadistic characters on both sides. War on Terrorism has been declared and they hit us back. On 9/11 there was no war. We had a moral highground and the world was ready to fight with us. They stood with us on our way into Afghanistan. But our compass was broken when your man took us into Iraq. One of the reasons I am a Bush-Whacker is because he shirked his responsibility to go after bin Laden, who orchestrated the attack of 9/11. Now Al-Quaeda has struck again. Guess the mission was not accomplished.

PS - Don't repeat that cr@p about our respecting a sovereign country that prevents our going in after him. We just kidnapped a suspect of much less stature in Italy without their permission. The Dumb Dubya is afraid of the Bin Laden clan. White sheep, black sheep, Bush kills Bin Laden and they will come after him. He can't hide behind the real soldiers like he did during Vietnam.

<h1></h1>

Dan Estes, you mean to say you Do NOT Hate the Murdering Moron in the Evil Office? You didn't say exactly, but I get that sense, (and I understand why you would hide it). Whoa, if you still protect or support President Illegal Idiot, or you have his sticky bumper sickness on your car, and then you have an opinion about what is a broken moral compass ... uh, people who live in glass houses, Estes flake, people who live in glass houses.

Kari, thank you thank you thank you for erasing my mistakes mistakes mistakes. (However, I do agree with Jeff that it was very funny -- and I was laughing -- and it served good purpose to leave the mess mess mess in sight. [Notice how it went from "my mistakes" to "the mess." Hey, 'mistakes were made' ... 'at this point in time' -- useful Ron Ziegler quotes, from when he was Richard Nixon's AriFleischer-ScottMcClellan rolled into one.])

Kari, your basic instructions for how to post a comment cleanly are good to review and recall from time to time.

Jim, your comment gave me an idea. I shudder to think about something like this happening on one of our MAX trains. On second reading, I get that you mean you're worried, frightened, terrified, traumatized, (on a scale from 1 to 4). Don't be. Stay at zero on the scale. Look -- there's evidence for this if you look around, or ask me for an entry link into it -- what there is to see, and know in your marrow, is: There. Are. No. Terrorists. However, there is 'terrorism,' and it is defined in the CIA operations manual as a preferred strategy, and tactics are explained, for destabilizing a populace and its governance pursuant to taking over control of a country. (Use link to "The Secret Team" in my post, above.) And, how CIA matters in this is that Osama was trained and directed by our CIA, and Osama is, even today, a CIA asset, (like 'agent,' only at arm's length), and Osama, among other things, does things the CIA sometimes tells him to do, ('go here,' 'meet that person,' etc.), and sometimes the CIA does other things or has them done and then leaks word Osama did them -- they frame him. (How to frame people for stuff they didn't do is also in the CIA ops manual, and Oswald is one case of that.) Read Osamagate. I know, I know, Too. Much. Information. Who's got time to know stuff ? !!

But on first reading, or skimming, across Jim's quote, I took the wrong meaning. Which was that he could not imagine what to do, how to get around, if MAX stopped. That's where I got an idea. (By being wrong :-)
MAX, SHMAX. Or if the power goes out. Or the water goes off, or the heat. Or if food couldn't get to the stores for a week ... or indefinitely. Who can Imagine WHAT TO DO?
The idea is for Civilian Disruption Drills. Rehearse emergency situations. (Terrorists, shmerrorists -- actually, it is our own powermad government people who threaten our livelihoods, ask Brandon Mayfield, Kendra James, but -- no matter.) What if everyday life infrastructure stopped? Different answers for different folks, but everyone could rehearse for their own situation. The Emergency Swat Preparedness People, (which I say is a job-security joke -- they save themselves, not citizens), are always having their Mock Disaster Drills, (example in their training books: In case of mass Disease/Sickness Disaster, secure and blockade hospitals from the people so they don't mob the place.?!), so my idea is people, alone or by self-organizing (Blue Oregon ?) groups, should have Civilian Disruption Drills. To save lives. So people who can't imagine, don't sit and shudder to think for three days, and don't die.

Finally, panchopdx, you ignorant Jane Curtin. You write so strong and clear, why do you not give readers all the facts ? ANWR would help for 8 years, you say, to offer transition (to alternatives) time before oil runs down or runs out.
CHALLENGE to panchopdx (the twit): WHEN does oil run out and WHERE do you get your answer?

Here is my answer in a lot of reading, (I had time, I gathered information.) It can stand as the truth while you shut up or disprove it The economy collapses first. The housing bubble bursts. Pensions, mutual funds, retirement plans go bankrupt. (So WARN people. Panic ahead of time is a good thing -- just ask devastated PGE's ENRON employees.) All of that happens later this year. (Does it matter if I'm wrong and it isn't until 2006? 2007? What's the difference to you if you are only going to watch TV until then, anyway, and let it happen TO you? Shudder.) Oil doesn't run out overnight, it runs down first. It already started. Existing wells (globally) can not pump as much oil in 2005 as in 2004. '06 is going to be less than '05. See Energy Bulletin net

So oil does not truly run out, (at today's rate of use, and INCLUDING ANWR, oil IS USED UP in 2030 -- when's your mortgage up ?), oil tapers off ... we use less and less, but some exists. But what's the difference to you if gas is $20-a-gallon or there is no gas? Mostly, it's about the same: there're no cars on the road and everyone's riding bicycles ... oh, say, 2008. 2010? Kids under 10 now maybe never have driver's licenses. How 'bout that.

So, panchopdx (twit), disprove and document or stop lying to people. Screw your ANWR. Here is the MARKER: 6 Months,

We have very little time and all ... are encouraged to start planning for a winter that may include inflation, blackouts, fuel shortages, and even possibly rationing.

<hr/>

P.S. Kari, probably by now you quit caring but the oil depletion is On Topic with London (and 9/11) atrocities in this connection, viz: facing oil exhaustion is WHY American Imperials (CIA-provided) plan Middle East invasion and control, by getting American citizens too terrified to dissent, by framing Arabs as 'the enemy,' by planting explosives and murdering innocents, 9/11/01, 7/7/05, et seq. I realize my argument is unpopular, but more before than now: people's opinions are shifting toward mine. I was thinking just today ... in the events of the last year(s), using my (opinion) framework, (it's not original, btw, I stole it), things make more and more sense; and using the opposite (denial option) framework, things make less and less sense -- Why canNOT we 'find' Osama? (His value is as an illusion, an apparition, a bogeyman. 'Be very afraid.') Why is NOT Iraq over? (The plan is to keep it.) What a year it has been. Happy Birthday, BLUE OREGON. Congratulations, Kari Chisholm.

<h1></h1>

Hate him?!? Goodness no! I helped put him there. I clearly don't agree with everything he has done, nor am I required to. I will continue to speak of a moral compass until I can find Oregon Democrats who can condemn terrorism without using the word "but" in the sentence. With respect and deference to Jim above, the search continues.

<h1></h1>

Why the hell do you even go looking to find Oregon Democrats, of whatever capability? You got what you want in your man driving the bandwagon you're on -- or do you not? Why look farther?

Here's one of what you claim you are looking for, (despite my suspecting you're making a false claim): I, an Oregon Democrat, condemn terrorism. The lies Bush told and continues to tell that frighten people without basis, (he cries 'wolf,' there is no wolf), is a prime example of terrorism I condemn.

A secondary example of terrorism I condemn is someone insulting me or deriding me (without investigation) in my knowledge that Bush tells lies and/or my knowledge there is no 'wolf.'

I welcome comparing knowledges with almost anyone, including uneasy semi-second-thoughts-having Bush supporters.

<h1></h1>

Tensk wrote:

Finally, panchopdx, you ignorant Jane Curtin. You write so strong and clear, why do you not give readers all the facts ? ANWR would help for 8 years, you say, to offer transition (to alternatives) time before oil runs down or runs out. CHALLENGE to panchopdx (the twit): WHEN does oil run out and WHERE do you get your answer?

Tensk, did the OHP stop covering your meds again?

Maybe you and Peek and carpool to Canada to get them cheaper.

If you read carefully, you would have noticed that I had clipped and responded to a post by Paul Gronke (immediately above mine) where he submitted a link documenting the 8 year/25% figure.

I did not validate or dispute the estimate he linked, rather, I pointed out that, if true, it is more than enough reason to drill ANWR.

I don't claim to know what ANWR will produce to a certainty (no one does). But I really doubt private companies would spend the exorbitant amounts necessary to explore/drill up there without a good idea of whether it will pay off.

The 6 month figure may be true, but it is used by you to mislead the clueless. ANWR's reserves wouldn't be used up in 6 months, it would would be used to reduce our dependence over time. (100% for six months is about 10% over 5 years). Even if it produces nothing, as long as private companies undertake the risk it is worth trying.

<h2>Well, Tens....that was a start. Too bad you just kept right on going. If anyone is looking for a reason Kerry lost in 2004, this is a great example. Some folks are just to blinded by anger to get it in gear. Anger is seen as ineffectual.</h2>