GUMBEL THE STUPID by Ray Thomas

Josey1

GUMBEL THE STUPID: "Chagrined by the fact that I was even watching CBS, I will still admit that a week ago last Wednesday I listened to Bryant Gumbel interview the head of the Airline Pilot's Association about (arming pilots in cockpits). Gumbel, the quintessential, non compos mentis liberal, questioned the Association's advocacy of allowing guns in the cockpit, citing the fact that pilots have stressful jobs and are subject to vices like drinking, and hence, are a risk if they pack heat. Of course, we all know that policemen and other lawfully-armed groups are immune to these problems. Gumbel is such a dipwad, but it is worth watching him occasionally just to see raw, unabridged liberal idiocy." It would seem to me that if the pilots were that bad, they ought not to be flying aircraft, anyway. That response tells me just how stupid Gumbel is. If I had that kind of opinion of those who fly the aircraft on which I must fly, I'd go by train. But I don't think Gumbel has ever done that. Again I ask: if they're responsible enough to be trusted with multi-million dollar aircraft on a daily basis and the lives of all their passengers, how could they possibly be as irresponsible as jerks like Gumbel try to paint them? There is really no good reason not to arm the pilots, no matter what liberals try to make you think. If anybody can come up with one, please tell me about it. (Source: Reader Brent Barnett, GOP News & Views 10/6/2001) [100901-1] IT WAS ALL A BIG EXTORTION SCAM: That's what the big "anti-smoking" suit was. It wasn't for the purpose of producing anti-smoking propaganda as they said it was. The way they worked the scam is the same way they worked the Social Security number as national ID scam. They made promises, but they didn't make a law to enforce the promise. So now the Social Security number is being demanded of everybody, to do anything. And the states are spending the "anti-smoking extortion money" for everything but anti-smoking propaganda and paying medical expenses. Reader's Digest says: "Unspent money is to politicians what an unlit cigarette is to a three-pack-a-day smoker." So they're rushing to spend it on their pet projects and to Hell with anti-smoking propaganda and medical costs. "Indeed, for cash-starved state and local governments, the tobacco take is like winning the lottery." And they're even acting like many lottery winners, selling the "rights" to the extortion money for a smaller, but "right now" take. In Niagara County, since they spent all their tobacco cash on everything but what they said they'd spend it on, they're now "patting their pockets" wondering where they'll get the $12 million to cover the current shortfall. Meanwhile, the trial lawyers who engineered the scam will get a payday of well over $11 billion (with a "B") dollars. Sounds like they will be well-paid for running the scam. (Source: Reader's Digest, 10/2001) [100901-2] A DELUDED PEOPLE: Yar Mohammed, a 26-year-old laborer in Afghanistan is a good example of just how deluded a people can be when the "government" absolutely controls the means of dissemination of information and people have to depend upon the "rumor mill" for their information when he says: "We are happy because Americans will lose this fight. Their days are numbered." Our days are numbered by such as this? Barefoot people who can't even rebuild the destruction from a ten-years war? People who are mostly illiterate? Gimme a break! These people are completely deluded. I understand why Taliban leaders say such things. They're "whistling in the dark" so they won't be frightened by the death and destruction that is to come because of the ignorant things they have done. This ragamuffin bunch don't even have the guts to use their regular people on the front lines. They're forcibly drafting youths from ethnic minorities with the intention of putting them in front-line positions so they can "hide in the bushes" and watch while they are killed. But bad for them, when the "cannon fodder" is gone, they'll have to take the front-line positions themselves. (Source: Rocky Mountain News, 10/6/2001) [100901-3] IT'S BETTER IN EUROPE: Yeah, right. It always is, but it really isn't. They just think so. They tell us that airport passenger screeners (security) are better in Europe because of "tougher government regulations for private security firms and better training, pay and advancement opportunities for screeners." Well, that might be true to a degree, but that doesn't mean the government needs to be in charge, with their record of failure at everything they attempt. All we need do is raise their pay, make their training better, and offer them advancement opportunities so those positions will not be the "dead-end positions" government people think they are. Thinking that the government can do a better job of running airport security is something only a bureaucrat, who has the ability to ignore obvious facts, would believe. All we have to do is improve conditions for these people, hire people who are capable, and train them well. It's a "no-brainer." But bureaucrats can't see that. (Source: Rocky Mountain News, 10/6/2001) [100901-4] HANOI JANE -- THE ENEMY WITHIN: "When Jane Fonda visited North Vietnamese army troops while our GIs were being killed by those she was comforting, we tagged her "Hanoi Jane." Now she and other Vietnam-era war protesters are back at their divisive, feckless game. They and their latest recruits apparently can't compute that our country has just been assaulted by madmen as bad as Hitler's worst." No, they can't. they're blinded by their fear of doing anything that might invite retaliation by the terrorists because they know there's a great possibility they might themselves be targets. Terrorists hate people like Jane because they're "turncoats" and traitors to their own country. They might even use them for their own purposes, but they still hate them. Maybe the FBI ought to look into Jane, since she seems always to immediately jump into the enemy camp whenever America is attacked. There must be a reason for that. She can't really believe that if we don't retaliate, the terrorists won't strike again. Maybe she wants them to. (Source: David Hackworth, sent by NERRP, 10/8/2001) [100901-5] RAY'S SHORTS: These are very short items, but on important subjects: It is Clinton's fault!". . . The Clinton Administration refused to recognize the threat, refused to mobilize the nation, refused to arm our security forces to the levels needed to defend us, refused to recognize that we were in a war and refused to declare a policy to win it. The terrorists got the message: America is weak. The refusals put us in danger as a nation, and made the tragedy of September 11th possible." (Author and columnist David Horowitz, "The War Room," 9/27/01) Why not, indeed? Bush plans to put armed federal marshals on every flight. Can you imagine the cost of putting marshals on every U.S. flight? . . . Allowing pilots, co-pilots, navigators, even stewardesses to carry firearms on board U.S. flights would cost taxpayers nothing and would be just as effective, if not more so. Therefore, why does Bush not consider it? (Talk show host Chuck Baldwin, "Chuck Wagon," 9/28/01) "Descending to their level:" Descending to their level would mean responding in kind by, say, dropping a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan. Compared to such indiscriminate violence, killing Osama bin Laden -- wanted 'dead or alive' by President Bush -- would be a measured response." [I really am sick of pacifists using this "descending to their level" scam as an excuse to "wimp out" on responding to violence. -RT] (Fox News Channel) You'll hurt yourself: "Fear is at the root of most evil. As Boots Cooper, age 8, said after a close encounter with a chicken snake, 'Some things will scare you so bad you'll hurt yourself.' These dotty proposals to break the Constitution [to 'fight terrorism' -RT] fall into that category. We cannot make ourselves more secure by making ourselves less free." (Columnist Molly Ivins [be still my beating heart. -RT] 10/2/01) [100901-6] http://www.sierratimes.com/nuggets.htm