From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #471 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Monday, October 8 2001 Volume 02 : Number 471 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 06:01:30 -0500 From: linzellr@datastar.net (Robert Linzell) Subject: Fwd: CRYPTO-GRAM SPECIAL ISSUE, September 30, 2001 (3 of 3) I am not opposed to using force against the terrorists. I am not opposed to going to war -- for retribution, deterrence, and the restoration of the social contract -- assuming a suitable enemy can be identified. Occasionally, peace is something you have to fight for. But I think the use of force is far more complicated than most people realize. Our actions are important; messing this up will only make things worse. Written before September 11: A former CIA operative explains why the terrorist Usama bin Laden has little to fear from American intelligence. And a Russian soldier discusses why war in Afghanistan will be a nightmare. A British soldier explains the same: Lessons from Britain on fighting terrorism: 1998 Esquire interview with Bin Ladin: Phil Agre's comments on these issues: Why technology can't save us: Hactivism exacts revenge for terrorist attacks: FBI reminds everyone that it's illegal: Hackers face life imprisonment under anti-terrorism act: Especially scary are the "advice or assistance" components. A security consultant could face life imprisonment, without parole, if he discovered and publicized a security hole that was later exploited by someone else. After all, without his "advice" about what the hole was, the attacker never would have accomplished his hack. Companies fear cyberterrorism: They're investing in security: Upgrading government computers to fight terrorism: Risks of cyberterrorism attacks against our electronic infrastructure: Now the complaint is that Bin Laden is NOT using high-tech communications: Larry Ellison is willing to give away the software to implement a national ID card. Security problems include: inaccurate information, insiders issuing fake cards (this happens with state drivers' licenses), vulnerability of the large database, potential privacy abuses, etc. And, of course, no trans-national terrorists would be listed in such a system, because they wouldn't be U.S. citizens. What do you expect from a company whose origins are intertwined with the CIA? ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* Protecting Privacy and Liberty Appalled by the recent hijackings, many Americans have declared themselves willing to give up civil liberties in the name of security. They've declared it so loudly that this trade-off seems to be a fait accompli. Article after article talks about the balance between privacy and security, discussing whether various increases of security are worth the privacy and civil-liberty losses. Rarely do I see a discussion about whether this linkage is a valid one. Security and privacy are not two sides of a teeter-totter. This association is simplistic and largely fallacious. It's easy and fast, but less effective, to increase security by taking away liberty. However, the best ways to increase security are not at the expense of privacy and liberty. It's easy to refute the notion that all security comes at the expense of liberty. Arming pilots, reinforcing cockpit doors, and teaching flight attendants karate are all examples of security measures that have no effect on individual privacy or liberties. So are better authentication of airport maintenance workers, or dead-man switches that force planes to automatically land at the closest airport, or armed air marshals traveling on flights. Liberty-depriving security measures are most often found when system designers failed to take security into account from the beginning. They're Band-aids, and evidence of bad security planning. When security is designed into a system, it can work without forcing people to give up their freedoms. Here's an example: securing a room. Option one: convert the room into an impregnable vault. Option two: put locks on the door, bars on the windows, and alarm everything. Option three: don't bother securing the room; instead, post a guard in the room who records the ID of everyone entering and makes sure they should be allowed in. Option one is the best, but is unrealistic. Impregnable vaults just don't exist, getting close is prohibitively expensive, and turning a room into a vault greatly lessens its usefulness as a room. Option two is the realistic best; combine the strengths of prevention, detection, and response to achieve resilient security. Option three is the worst. It's far more expensive than option two, and the most invasive and easiest to defeat of all three options. It's also a sure sign of bad planning; designers built the room, and only then realized that they needed security. Rather then spend the effort installing door locks and alarms, they took the easy way out and invaded people's privacy. A more complex example is Internet security. Preventive countermeasures help significantly against script kiddies, but fail against smart attackers. For a couple of years I have advocated detection and response to provide security on the Internet. This works; my company catches attackers -- both outside hackers and insiders -- all the time. We do it by monitoring the audit logs of network products: firewalls, IDSs, routers, servers, and applications. We don't eavesdrop on legitimate users or read traffic. We don't invade privacy. We monitor data about data, and find abuse that way. No civil liberties are violated. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Still, combined with preventive security products it is more effective, and more cost-effective, than anything else. The parallels between Internet security and global security are strong. All criminal investigation looks at surveillance records. The lowest-tech version of this is questioning witnesses. In this current investigation, the FBI is looking at airport videotapes, airline passenger records, flight school class records, financial records, etc. And the better job they can do examining these records, the more effective their investigation will be. There are copycat criminals and terrorists, who do what they've seen done before. To a large extent, this is what the hastily implemented security measures have tried to prevent. And there are the clever attackers, who invent new ways to attack people. This is what we saw on September 11. It's expensive, but we can build security to protect against yesterday's attacks. But we can't guarantee protection against tomorrow's attacks: the hacker attack that hasn't been invented, or the terrorist attack yet to be conceived. Demands for even more surveillance miss the point. The problem is not obtaining data, it's deciding which data is worth analyzing and then interpreting it. Everyone already leaves a wide audit trail as we go through life, and law enforcement can already access those records with search warrants. The FBI quickly pieced together the terrorists' identities and the last few months of their lives, once they knew where to look. If they had thrown up their hands and said that they couldn't figure out who did it or how, they might have a case for needing more surveillance data. But they didn't, and they don't. More data can even be counterproductive. The NSA and the CIA have been criticized for relying too much on signals intelligence, and not enough on human intelligence. The East German police collected data on four million East Germans, roughly a quarter of their population. Yet they did not foresee the peaceful overthrow of the Communist government because they invested heavily in data collection instead of data interpretation. We need more intelligence agents squatting on the ground in the Middle East arguing the Koran, not sitting in Washington arguing about wiretapping laws. People are willing to give up liberties for vague promises of security because they think they have no choice. What they're not being told is that they can have both. It would require people to say no to the FBI's power grab. It would require us to discard the easy answers in favor of thoughtful answers. It would require structuring incentives to improve overall security rather than simply decreasing its costs. Designing security into systems from the beginning, instead of tacking it on at the end, would give us the security we need, while preserving the civil liberties we hold dear. Some broad surveillance, in limited circumstances, might be warranted as a temporary measure. But we need to be careful that it remain temporary, and that we do not design surveillance into our electronic infrastructure. Thomas Jefferson once said: "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." Historically, liberties have always been a casualty of war, but a temporary casualty. This war -- a war without a clear enemy or end condition -- has the potential to turn into a permanent state of society. We need to design our security accordingly. The events of September 11th demonstrated the need for America to redesign our public infrastructures for security. Ignoring this need would be an additional tragedy. Quotes from U.S. government officials on the need to preserve liberty during this crisis: Quotes from editorial pages on the same need: Selected editorials: Schneier's comments in the UK: War and liberties: More on Ashcroft's anti-privacy initiatives: Editorial cartoon: Terrorists leave a broad electronic trail: National Review article from 1998: "Know nothings: U.S. intelligence failures stem from too much information, not enough understanding" A previous version of this essay appeared in the San Jose Mercury News: ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* How to Help How can you help? Speak about the issues. Write to your elected officials. Contribute to organizations working on these issues. This week the United States Congress will act on the most sweeping proposal to extend the surveillance authority of the government since the end of the Cold War. If you value privacy, there are three steps you should take before you open your next email message: 1. Urge your representatives in Congress to protect privacy. - - Call the White House switchboard at 202-224-3121. - - Ask to be connected to the office of your Congressional representative. - - When you are put through, say "May I please speak to the staff member who is working on the anti-terrorism legislation?" If that person is not available to speak with you, say "May I please leave a message?" - - Briefly explain that you appreciate the efforts of your representative to address the challenges brought about by the September 11th tragedy, but it is your view that it would be a mistake to make any changes in the federal wiretap statute that do not respond to "the immediate threat of investigating or preventing terrorist acts." 2. Go to the In Defense of Freedom web site and endorse the statement: 3. Forward this message to at least five other people. We have less than 100 hours before Congress acts on legislation that will (a) significantly expand the use of Carnivore, (b) make computer hacking a form of terrorism, (c) expand electronic surveillance in routine criminal investigations, and (d) reduce government accountability. Please act now. More generally, I expect to see many pieces of legislation that will address these matters. Visit the following Web sites for up-to-date information on what is happening and what you can do to help. The Electronic Privacy Information Center: The Center for Democracy and Technology: The American Civil Liberties Union: ** *** ***** ******* *********** ************* CRYPTO-GRAM is a free monthly newsletter providing summaries, analyses, insights, and commentaries on computer security and cryptography. Back issues are available on . To subscribe, visit or send a blank message to crypto-gram-subscribe@chaparraltree.com. To unsubscribe, visit . Please feel free to forward CRYPTO-GRAM to colleagues and friends who will find it valuable. Permission is granted to reprint CRYPTO-GRAM, as long as it is reprinted in its entirety. CRYPTO-GRAM is written by Bruce Schneier. Schneier is founder and CTO of Counterpane Internet Security Inc., the author of "Secrets and Lies" and "Applied Cryptography," and an inventor of the Blowfish, Twofish, and Yarrow algorithms. He is a member of the Advisory Board of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC). He is a frequent writer and lecturer on computer security and cryptography. Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. is the world leader in Managed Security Monitoring. Counterpane's expert security analysts protect networks for Fortune 1000 companies world-wide. Copyright (c) 2001 by Counterpane Internet Security, Inc. - - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 23:18:23 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: anti-terrorist spray (fwd) From: Swftl@aol.com Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:37:30 EDT Subject: anti-terrorist spray Re: Don't fear terrorists! Send them to Hell! Date: 10/03/2001 12:45:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Dagny@Sunbeach.Net (Dagny) Dear Editor, My friend's idea for an anti-terrorist spray containing pork and vodka which, if sprayed on a terrorist, makes them believe in their own mind they will be damned to hell for eternity, is actually a very good idea. I would like to see his idea published as a letter to the editor as wide and far as possible. Who says we need nuclear weapons to fight muslim fanatic terrorism?! submitted for reprinting by Ms. Dagny Sharon, Tustin, California. Letter to the Editor: >Have your travel plans been dampened by terrorist attacks? >Step right up, folks! >Get your bottle of WILLYSTAR (tm) brand Anti-Terrorist Spray! > >Made from all natural and organic products, this low-tech spray will protect >you from a host of moslem fundamentalist terrorists. Though less effective >on the following, it also has a repellent effect on buddhist, hindu and >jewish radicals, and even militant vegans and animal rights activists! > >Our product is made with pure 100% bacon grease, diluted with vodka (an >added sin to moslems) to keep it in a sprayable liquid state. When sprayed >on the face or body of a terrorist, it renders them UNCLEAN and if they die >in such a state they will NOT go to Paradise but be condemned to Hell for >all eternity! Safe and effective, with the mouth-watering aroma of fried >bacon. Mm-mmm! > >The convenient pump-spray bottle can be carried in pocket or purse. It's >not a weapon, it's a cookwear coating! At $4.95 (plus shipping and >handling), It makes a lovely and thoughtful gift for friends or loved ones >departing on vacation or honeymoon. > >WILLYSTAR ANTI-TERRORIST SPRAY.... Don't leave home without it! Willy Star Marshall willystarman@hotmail.com - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 16:32:53 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: THOUGHT4 (fwd) From: william king Subject: THOUGHT4 Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 11:49:35 -0500 William's THOUGHT FOR TODAY At the Rose Bowl, security officials were searching the handbags of grandmothers. There's always the risk that one of them will try to knit an Afghan..... - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 20:39:36 -0700 From: "Kenneth Mitchell" Subject: FW: DISARMED Interesting.... - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA ken@creativemindssacramento.com 916-955-9152 (voice) 916-729-0966 (fax) - ----------------http://www.creativemindssacramento.com------------- In March 1984, three Palestinians opened fire with machine guns at a crowded cafe in Jerusalem. Their intention was to go round a succession of crowded places, killing and then escaping before the authorities could arrive. They killed one person. Nearly everyone at the cafe was armed. Only one of the attackers survived to be arrested. That's why they use suicide bombs now. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Heroes of United Flight 93 Jeremy Glick told his wife to have a good life, and to take care of their baby. Thomas Burnett, who made replacement heart valves, called his wife to tell her that he loved her. Mark Bingham, a publicist, was on his way home to San Francisco. Lou Nacke was a toy-company manager on his way to Sacramento for a day trip. Todd Beamer used the AirPhone to report the hijacking, and then called "Let's roll!" as these five heroes attacked the hijackers who were on their way to..... an empty field in Pennsylvania. They were the first five heroes of the war. Let their names live in honor! http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp - ------------------------------------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: National Review D.C. [mailto:nrdc@ix.netcom.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 7:58 AM > To: WashingtonBulletin@topica.com > Subject: DISARMED > > > Washington Bulletin: National Review's Internet Update for > October 4, 2001 > http://www.nationalreview.com > > > DISARMED > [A gun-hating historian comes under heavy fire.] > > > Our colleague Melissa Seckora had the misfortune of seeing the most > important article she’s ever written debut on the National Review > website on the morning of September 11. Her story exposing the phony > sources behind Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, an > award-winning book critical of U.S. gun culture by Emory University > historian Michael Bellesiles, normally would have attracted a great deal > of attention. Yet it was featured online for only a few hours and then > archived--available only to people who knew where to search for it--as > we all came to grips with the horror of mass terrorism. > > Now there’s been a stunning new development in the Bellesiles case: The > head of Emory’s history department is demanding that Bellesiles write a > detailed defense of his book. “What is important is that he defend > himself and the integrity of his scholarship immediately,” said James > Melton, according to yesterday’s Boston Globe, which also printed a > September 11 story on Bellesiles airing charges similar to Seckora’s. > “Depending upon his response, the university will respond > appropriately.” > > That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of a colleague. And it gets > worse: “If there is prima facie evidence of scholarly misconduct, the > university has to conduct a thorough investigation. Whether it be a > purely internal inquiry, or the university brings in distinguished > scholars in the field, will depend on how Michael responds,” said > Melton. > > Seckora, in fact, interviewed some of the “distinguished scholars” any > such effort is likely to involve--including a few recommended to her by > Bellesiles. Let’s just say he doesn’t fare well in their estimation. But > how could he? As Seckora shows, key sources for his claim that guns were > a much less important part of early American culture than is commonly > believed simply don’t exist. Many of those he cites, in fact, were > destroyed in San Francisco’s 1906 earthquake. There’s not a historian > alive who’s seen them. > > Bellesiles now must explain how they wound up in his footnotes--and he > told the Globe he’ll do it in a future newsletter published by the > Organization of American Historians. > > He has his work cut out for him, thanks in part to the intrepid > reporting of Seckora, whose article may be read here: > < http://www.nationalreview.com/15oct01/seckora101501.shtml >, or in the > October 15, 2001, issue of National Review. > > ==^================================================================ > EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?bUrCJX.bVhn8p > Or send an email To: WashingtonBulletin-unsubscribe@topica.com > This email was sent to: ken@creativemindssacramento.com > > T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! > http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register > ==^================================================================ > > - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 18:17:37 -0500 From: Joe Sylvester Subject: Re: On the Positive Side (fwd) At 05:06 AM 10/3/2001 -0600, roc-digest wrote: >Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 02:02:38 -0700 >From: Bill Vance >Subject: On the Positive Side (fwd) > >From: "Huck" >Subject: Fw: On the Positive Side >Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 22:08:40 -0400 > >- ----- Original Message ----- >From: "Robert Berry" >Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 10:01 PM >Subject: On the Positive Side > > > > The Pentagon - > > > Some 23,000 people were the target of a third plane aimed at the > > Pentagon. Chances are pretty good that the Pentagon was not the original target. More likely the Capital or the White House. Draw a line perpendicular to the face of the Pentagon that was hit and it goes very near the White House. The plane was observed to pass the Pentagon once, then make a circle just north of the White House then just east of the capital. A pilot not experienced in that particular aircraft could easily loose a bit more altitude "going around", and then be unable to regain it. IMHO, he then picked the Pentagon as a target of opportunity. The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. --Doug McKay" Joe Sylvester Don't Tread On Me ! Molon Labe! - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:16:26 -0700 From: "Kenneth Mitchell" Subject: RE: On the Positive Side (fwd) > > Chances are pretty good that the Pentagon was not the original > target. More > likely the Capital or the White House. Draw a line perpendicular to the > face of the Pentagon that was hit and it goes very near the White House. > The plane was observed to pass the Pentagon once, then make a circle just > north of the White House then just east of the capital. A pilot not > experienced in that particular aircraft could easily loose a bit more > altitude "going around", and then be unable to regain it. IMHO, he then > picked the Pentagon as a target of opportunity. > I was in DC during the attacks, and on Thursday I walked up to the Washington Monument. The Monument is on a small hill (I'd never realized how hilly DC was!) and looked north toward the White House. As a private pilot myself, I'm inclined to believe that the White House would be a difficult target for a kamikaze airliner. It's in a depression; not really a "valley", but a little lower than the surrounding terain. It's only three or four stories, and it's surrounded by trees. It was hard to see the White House from the Monument, which is on a small rise. It would be difficult to crash an airliner into it without hitting the trees first. All the buildings around it are just as tall or taller. Remember that the airliners are "fly by wire"; I'm not certain that the computers would allow a steep enough dive at low altitude to hit a small target, especially with an inexperienced pilot. The WTC towers were a cinch; they stuck right up there, and so a kamikaze pilot just had to drive into it straight & level, no real flying skills required. The Capitol would have been easier; taller, on higher ground, with a long clear corridor (the Mall) for a straight approach. That may have been United 93's target. And the airliner didn't HIT the Pentagon; most accounts say that it hit the helipad a few dozen yards short of the Pentagon and bounced into it. Which fits nicely with your "inexperienced pilot loses control" theory. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA ken@creativemindssacramento.com 916-955-9152 (voice) 916-729-0966 (fax) - ----------------http://www.creativemindssacramento.com------------- In March 1984, three Palestinians opened fire with machine guns at a crowded cafe in Jerusalem. Their intention was to go round a succession of crowded places, killing and then escaping before the authorities could arrive. They killed one person. Nearly everyone at the cafe was armed. Only one of the attackers survived to be arrested. That's why they use suicide bombs now. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Heroes of United Flight 93 Jeremy Glick told his wife to have a good life, and to take care of their baby. Thomas Burnett, who made replacement heart valves, called his wife to tell her that he loved her. Mark Bingham, a publicist, was on his way home to San Francisco. Lou Nacke was a toy-company manager on his way to Sacramento for a day trip. Todd Beamer used the AirPhone to report the hijacking, and then called "Let's roll!" as these five heroes attacked the hijackers who were on their way to..... an empty field in Pennsylvania. They were the first five heroes of the war. Let their names live in honor! http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp - ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 17:16:26 -0700 From: "Kenneth Mitchell" Subject: RE: On the Positive Side (fwd) > > Chances are pretty good that the Pentagon was not the original > target. More > likely the Capital or the White House. Draw a line perpendicular to the > face of the Pentagon that was hit and it goes very near the White House. > The plane was observed to pass the Pentagon once, then make a circle just > north of the White House then just east of the capital. A pilot not > experienced in that particular aircraft could easily loose a bit more > altitude "going around", and then be unable to regain it. IMHO, he then > picked the Pentagon as a target of opportunity. > I was in DC during the attacks, and on Thursday I walked up to the Washington Monument. The Monument is on a small hill (I'd never realized how hilly DC was!) and looked north toward the White House. As a private pilot myself, I'm inclined to believe that the White House would be a difficult target for a kamikaze airliner. It's in a depression; not really a "valley", but a little lower than the surrounding terain. It's only three or four stories, and it's surrounded by trees. It was hard to see the White House from the Monument, which is on a small rise. It would be difficult to crash an airliner into it without hitting the trees first. All the buildings around it are just as tall or taller. Remember that the airliners are "fly by wire"; I'm not certain that the computers would allow a steep enough dive at low altitude to hit a small target, especially with an inexperienced pilot. The WTC towers were a cinch; they stuck right up there, and so a kamikaze pilot just had to drive into it straight & level, no real flying skills required. The Capitol would have been easier; taller, on higher ground, with a long clear corridor (the Mall) for a straight approach. That may have been United 93's target. And the airliner didn't HIT the Pentagon; most accounts say that it hit the helipad a few dozen yards short of the Pentagon and bounced into it. Which fits nicely with your "inexperienced pilot loses control" theory. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- Ken Mitchell Citrus Heights, CA ken@creativemindssacramento.com 916-955-9152 (voice) 916-729-0966 (fax) - ----------------http://www.creativemindssacramento.com------------- In March 1984, three Palestinians opened fire with machine guns at a crowded cafe in Jerusalem. Their intention was to go round a succession of crowded places, killing and then escaping before the authorities could arrive. They killed one person. Nearly everyone at the cafe was armed. Only one of the attackers survived to be arrested. That's why they use suicide bombs now. - ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Heroes of United Flight 93 Jeremy Glick told his wife to have a good life, and to take care of their baby. Thomas Burnett, who made replacement heart valves, called his wife to tell her that he loved her. Mark Bingham, a publicist, was on his way home to San Francisco. Lou Nacke was a toy-company manager on his way to Sacramento for a day trip. Todd Beamer used the AirPhone to report the hijacking, and then called "Let's roll!" as these five heroes attacked the hijackers who were on their way to..... an empty field in Pennsylvania. They were the first five heroes of the war. Let their names live in honor! http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/632626.asp - ------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 20:47:29 -0700 From: Bill Vance Subject: "I'm a Bad American' by Ted Nugent (fwd) Plucked from another list (wrestling is FAKE????LOL) "I'm a Bad American' by Ted Nugent Written by Ted Nugent, the rock singer and hunter/naturalist, upon hearing that California Senators B. Boxer and D. Feinstein denounced him for being a "gun owner" and a "Rock Star." This was his response after telling the senators about his past contributions to children's charities and scholarship foundations which have totaled more than $13.7 million in the last 5 years!! I'm a Bad American - this pretty much sums it up for me. I like big trucks, big boats, big houses, and naturally, pretty women. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid-level governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts squirting out babies. I don't care about appearing compassionate. I think playing with toy guns doesn't make you a killer. I believe ignoring your kids and giving them Prozac might. I think I'm doing better than the homeless. I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized. I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or make me mad. This is my life to live, and not necessarily up to others expectations. I know what SEX is and there are not varying degrees of it. I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But if you want to that's fine; I just don't feel like everyone else should have to. I believe that if you are selling me a Dairy Queen shake, a pack of cigarettes, or hotel room you do it in English. As of matter of fact, if you are an American citizen you should speak English. My uncles and forefathers shouldn't have had to die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come disrespect ours, and make us bend to your will. Get over it. I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry butt if you're running from them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word 'freeze' or 'stop' in English, see the previous line. I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for unpopular opinions or actions. I know how to count votes and I feel much safer letting a machine with no political affiliation do a recount when needed. I know what the definition of lying is, and it isn't based on the word "is" - ever. I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you qualify for any special loan programs, gov't sponsored bank loans, etc., so you can open a hotel, 7-Eleven, trinket shop, or any thing else, while the indigenous peoples can't get past a high school education because they can't afford it. I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet. I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny. I want them to bring back safe and sane fireworks. I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that crap from someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light. But I respect your right to. I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment than working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box. I don't want to eat or drink anything with the words light, lite or fat-free on the package. Our soldiers did not go to some foreign country and risk their lives in vain and defend our Constitution so that decades later you can tell me it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. The guys who wrote it were light years ahead of anyone today, and they meant what they said - now leave the document alone, or there's going to be trouble. I don't hate the rich. I help the poor. I know wrestling is fake. I've never owned, or was a slave, and a large percentage of our forefathers weren't wealthy enough to own one either. Please stop blaming me because some prior white people were idiots - and remember, tons of white, Indian, Chinese, and other races have been enslaved too - it was wrong for every one of them. I believe a self-righteous liberal Democrat with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude. I want to know exactly which church is it where the "Reverend" Jessie Jackson preaches; and, what exactly is his job function. I own a gun, you can own a gun, and any red blooded American should be allowed to own a gun, but if you use it in a crime, then you will serve the time. I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it makes you mad, then invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building. Ask your buddy that invented the Internet to help you. I don't believe in hate crime legislation. Even suggesting it makes me mad. You're telling me that someone who is a minority, gay, disabled, another nationality, or otherwise different from the mainstream of this country has more value as a human being than I do as a white male. If someone kills anyone, I'd say that it's a hate crime. We don't need more laws! Let's enforce the ones we already have. I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks. I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child... it takes a parent with the guts to stand up to the kid and spank his butt and say "NO!" when it's necessary to do so. I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller. I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid. I will not be frowned upon or be looked down upon or be made to keep silent because I have these beliefs and opinions. I thought this country allowed me that right. I will not conform or compromise just to keep from hurting somebody's feelings. I'm neither angry nor disenfranchised, no matter how desperately the mainstream media would like the world to believe otherwise. Yes, I guess by some people's definition, I may be a bad American. But that's tough. Ted Nugent - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- Constitutional Government is dead, LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION!!!!! - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #471 *************************