Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Thomas Keske" <TKeske@Comcast.net>
Newsgroups: alt.surrealism
References: <mXZkc.9082$TD4.967032@attbi_s01>
Subject: Re: Pilgrim's Lack of Progress
Lines: 122
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Message-ID: <5Jalc.16276$0H1.1497672@attbi_s54>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.11.130
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s54 1083520961 24.34.11.130 (Sun, 02 May 2004 18:02:41 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 18:02:41 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Sun, 02 May 2004 18:02:41 GMT
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.surrealism:1180
I have a theory that poets and surrealists
ought to able to communicate coherently,
as well, when they choose. You should ideally
be able to use the language of rationality and
science, as well, not just bizarre freakishneses from other
dimensions, where the normal rules of physics
cease to exist.
I don't mind being perceived as a one-eyed, mad
prophet from the 9th circle of Hell, because, I after
all, I am a mad, one-eyed prophet from the 9th circle
of Hell.
However, I would hate to get pigeon-holed as being
merely a one-eyed prophet from the 9th circle
of hell. If nothing else, that is too long of a phrase,
and it get cumbersome to keep saying. But also, poets
and surrealist should aspire to be more then merely
<well, you know what, by now>.
So therefore, I offer some straight-ahead, common-sense
prose, as folksy as the Pilgrims in its simplity.
Really. It is. Nothing strange at all, here, beneath
the surface.
Tom Keske
===================================================
To: continuity@aei.org <continuity@aei.org>
From: Tom Keske
Date: May 2, 2004
Subject: Continuity of Government
Dear Continuity Committee,
In August of 2001, I flew out of National Airport and looked
down on the Pentagon. Even though I had lived in D.C.
for 5 years, I don't recall having seen it from the air, like
this, before. It was an awesome sight.
My mind was reeling, almost upon first gaze of it.
The first thought to cross my mind was that this was
terrible for security, that someone could hijack a
commercial airliner like this, and crash it into the
building. Even before Sept 11, I had commented that
such things were needed, as stronger doors on the
cockpit, which is now something among the measures
commonly discussed.
It could have been much worse. If the hijackers
had known to aim toward the higher-status offices
facing the Potomac, the damage could have been
immeasurably worse.
It is an irony that the Pentagon was doing renovations
to prevent truck bombs, at the time, while having
no plans against aerial attacks.
Security is an illusion. Even with all the precautions at the
airlines, there is still major vulnerability to inside penetration.
Having a plainclothes guard in the front seat, and a
strong, closed door on the cockpit, and an armed
pilot, is of no use- if it is the pilot himself who is the
renegade.
Security is also an illusion, if we go nuts with security
at airports, only to have a nuclear device detonated.
Instead of a hole in the Pentagon, there is a smoking hole
in the ground, where the Pentagon used to be.
I think that decentralizing the Pentagon is crucial. In
these days of networked communications, you do not
want a central location that is, as we say in the business
"a central point of failure". You should be looking to
obsolete the Pentagon complex, not spending lots of
money to improve its security. You should have the key
functions spread out, all around the country, linked
by computers, video, etc, much as if, for all intents and
purposes, they were still in the same building.
Turn the Pentagon into more of a historical, tourist
attraction, something mostly symbolic, not the real
source of military command.
You should also remember that only real security is
in removing every source of legitimate grievance,
as best that you can, with all factions around the world.
If you turn politics into a hateful bloodsport, hatred and
bloodshed will be the inevitable result.
Real diplomacy does not consist of telling lies with
extra-polite language. It consists of listening
to truth, acknowledging truth, and acting accordingly.
To respect truth, it is often more important to use
your ears, than to use your mouth.
The war in Iraq will not produce security, but just
the opposite, if there are degrading human rights
abuses against prisoners.
To have a Congressman who shouts "Queer! Queer!"
at another Congressman does not enchance security.
To have a Congressman who says that "I am not picking
on homosexuals. I am not saying that it is like 'man on dog'
or anything", does not enhance security.
Probably, one out of every 20 airline pilots who flies
out of National Airport is gay. I fear that provocative
and callous attitudes could someday provoke a
callous retaliation. I fear that sometimes we are
not dealing with issues as we should, because the human
mind seeks to block out images that are too disturbing.
Security depends critically upon fairness to
disfavored groups, not just suppression of them.
That is as true at home, as it is internationally.
Long term security depends on diplomacy, not
just military muscle.
Tom Keske
Boston, Massachusetts
|
|