This is very interesting. Discuss.

So how did this guy find out about all of this?

Paranoia...it's a strange thing. A similar situation has recently been disclosed through the Freedom of Information Act. Check out what Eisenhower was up to after Spudnik "caught us with our pants down" here

"MR. PRESIDENT, WE MUST NOW ALLOW A MINESHAFT GAP!"

yeah, i've seen this article floating around. alright, let's discuss. let's discuss mr. mann's affianced and aptly timed article.

let's talk about the word "exercise." as in a warm-up, a work out, a training session. as in practice. damn those crazy republicans for planning ahead during the cold war. i'm gonna write an article next about that other ridiculous "top secret" exercise started during the cold war: darpanet. get this, a bunch of government agencies got together to plan a "INTERnational computer NETwork." look where that planning got us.

"continuity of government" planning is neither new nor "extra-constitutional." mr. mann brings up reagan's executive orders, so why not also bring up those of his own party's poster boy, kennedy? two decades before ron, he was naming directors for emergency planning. in the 70s, the fcc claimed the right to interrupt any and all broadcasts in the event of an emergency. from the cold war to the previous gulf problems to the first world trade center attacks...the planning has evolved, as have the planning organizations from fema to tom ridge.

the whole point of homeland security is to, well, secure the homeland. in addition to their charge of detecting threats, preventing threats, and responding to threats, they're also responsible for preparing and recovering from threats. the secret is out. they're planning ahead. don't tell mr. mann.

now, i must say, i enjoy the word "clandestine." it has a weighty, scandalous feel. (good choice, james) yes, we're talking about secrets. is anyone seriously surprised that our government doesn't disclose everything they do the public? or is it possible that mr. mann merely wants to point out when two notable republicans are involved in something secretive? what about the beloved william j. clinton, and his post-Oklahoma bombing executive order? he clearly outlined who could keep secrets (the president and his designated agency heads), who could decide what constitutes a secret (same), and who could decide when to release a secret (same).

i, for one, want the secrets. we're talking about the government department that is responsible for keeping us afloat while under attack, making sure that we have food, water, energy, order, a leader, communication. mr. mann acts like these exercises were being kept from him, from me, from you. perhaps the preparations were kept top secret to keep the attackers from knowing?

this particular article doesn't really merit all of the buzz it's getting, and neither do any of the other dime-a-dozen, dubya-downing fabricated scandals. i'm not a republican and i'm not a democrat. i'm a marketing director. and from one marketing director to another, i salute you mr. mann. you've sold your product of "bush/cheney=republican=evil" to obedient masses everywhere.

man...you kick ass. excellent commentary on this very "timely" release.

(Edited by herman at 12:26 am on Mar. 24, 2004)

Hey, that was your first post. You are supposed to mention something about De Novo Dahl before you take part in other message board conversations. Read the rules, dammit.

Welcome to the board, SSB!

the rules. i like it. i think you all need an introduce yourself thread. i.e. my name is keith (clap, clap) and i play bass (clap, clap) i know my wrastlin (clap, clap), and i carry mace.

anyway. i do believe that i am in compliance as my first post, many a year ago, was probably about the features. i meant to write this earlier...i'm not new, so unnew in fact that i forgot the password to my original screenname. not that i know anyone here anymore, except you keith (according to one internet site, you are my only friend), and the notorious JC (who will thwart my own attempts in the presidential race with his blackmail tapes of me), and the thread-starting neuboy (who has opinions that don't always mesh with mine, but who has my respect for having an educated opinion).

so i have a new political topic...what do you all think about the war on drugs?

Elliott??

I have to say that I agree that the article is neither surprising nor particularly frightening to me. Maybe it's because I just saw "Fog of War" & the things that Robert McNamara talks about in that movie are way scarier than any secret emergency plans. I guess I just assume that these things happen all the time in the government. The thing that does scare me is that Cheney & Rumsfeld behave as if we're one moment away from Armageddon at every moment. They're bossy and paranoid and they have way too much influence in the current administration.

Does anyone else think the following paragraph clouds the author's argument? Referencing 9/11 makes the scenario seem not so farfetched. Too bad no one ever listened to Richard Clarke after Jan 20, 2001.

"Finally, during the early Clinton years, it was decided that this scenario was farfetched and outdated, a mere legacy of the Cold War. It seemed that no enemy in the world was still capable of decapitating America's leadership, and the program was abandoned. There things stood until September 11, 2001..."

Could this be the second coming of BrianEno2!?!

Could the EP release have brought him out of hiding?

I'm sorry, Carl, I don't think it's him, unless he moved to Nashville.

It sucks. I wish I was armed with lots of statistics, but I'll let ya'll look those up if you want. Just look at the amount of resources (money, manpower, prison space, etc) that we spend annually on the war on drugs. And for what? Has there been any success? How hard is it to obtain illegal drugs if you want them? Just imagine the difference that could be made in another area (our schools, for example) if we diverted even a fraction of the money that is funneled into fighting drugs.

I think that marijuana should definitely be legalized. As far as the "harder" drugs, I'm not so sure. I think that even legalizing marijuana could make a huge difference.

so i brought up the war on drugs not because i am elliott (though, there's strange proximity in that guess, and he enjoyed it), but because i read an article published by the NIDA. they, and the university of pennsylvania communications department apparently spearheaded a four-year study on the effectiveness of the anti-drug campaign (i.e. the "just say no" commercials, the "_______ is my anti-drug" campaign, the D.A.R.E. program, etc.). you know that commercial with the baby crawling towards the swimming pool, and the lack of baby sitter? that's my favorite. although, "responsibility" is not my personal anti-drug. "bonnaroo" was my anti-drug.

anyways, the study showed the results of the campaign on different age groups in different communities (with different education levels, income levels, etc.). as of march 2004, the war on drugs was reported to have spent nearly 8.5 billion dollars. the results were hillarious. essentially, the campaigns had little to no effect on kids, on the percentages of use among kids, on kids' attitudes towards drugs. it did, however, have a greater impact on their voting eligible parents. while the actual reported drug use among kids only showed a 2% variation over the four years, their parents' level of confidence that the war on drugs was being won dramatically jumped.

sorry, i don't know how to do that jazzy block of quote thing...but "money, resources, man power, prison space..." amen. all drugs should be legal. take the supply and demand out of the scene. look at the dutch. the street value of cocaine in the U.S. is roughly 3x the value of gold. gold! damn skippy people are gonna sell it, cops are gonna be bought off.

anyways, i'll try to find the article online and figure out how to link it, but i believe the full study can be found on the NIDA website.

I would argue the fact that drug abuse hasn't risen dramatically in the past few years means that they've had a major impact on kids. In this age of increased freeedoms for kids, I'm astounded that it hasn't risen 50%. I doubt you could say the same thing about teenage sex/pregnancy/STD.

Maybe I'm just biased because NIDA (or more specifically NIAAA) helps pay my bills.

Yeah, I was just throwing that out for discussion. I mean, I don't necessarily think that our government heads should be involved in NO clandestine activities especially when they involve certain aspects of national security. In the event of emergencies preparedness is key. I do feel however that the policies of many in the administration are fueled by residual Cold War paranoia. In that sense I agree with some things in the article. What we must always be wary of is the possibility that our own paranoias are manipulated to justify bizarro clandestine activity that is not necessarily justified.

As far as the war on drugs, let's just bear in mind that a vast criminal economy was spawned by the prohibition of alcohol; a prohibition that never proved effective. I don't know that I would advocate legalization of all drugs, though marijuana is certainly benign enough to warrant street legality. The most important thing is to adequately educate people on the risks of drugs without resorting to bogey-man propaganda.

fucking hippie

fucking narc

just kidding-- pot sucks

thats right, ill report you to the class police.
which consists of sina and i. wait, sina, do you smoke? oh well, even if you do you we can still bust carl and his hippie pearl jam friends.

Okay, you probably saw that picture in the Onion, but I swear that is NOT me.

i wanna know how to quote!

in the meantime, on neuboy's post...i hear what you're saying on cold war paranoia. i think, however, that the paranoia at that time was more of a public paranoia, whereas the terrorism concerns only reach "paranoia" status at the goverment level. and i gotta say, i'd rather them be all worried than me. then, everyone built shelters. now, i only know a few people who won't fly.

some vs. all drugs legal? i say all. pot ain't where the cash money bling is. i gotta believe that if drugs weren't so lucrative, they wouldn't be sold as much.

carl (by the way, what is carligula.com?) what do you do for a living that the nida pays your bills? oh and nida = www.nida.nih.gov

you make a good point. by the way, it was the stats/study review people that made the correlation bewteen the drug use rates and and the parental concern factor...not me. i'm not a stats and figures kinda girl (i never even took a stats class, right jc?). i just found it interesting, and at the same time frustrating that so much money is spent on a lost cause. if money is to be spent, however, i am far more in favor of it being spent on things like D.A.R.E. and assorted cheesy commercials than on law enforcement. i threw this topic out as i am currently developping my own opinions. as i said, i personally think drugs are gross, but i think tht the goverment getting involved in the personal lives of its citizens is even grosser. your point is good as i hadn't thought about it in terms of population growth and what not...more kids should have meant higher numbers, so no higher numbers means the rate isn't increasing? but isn't the rate of growth or whatever factored into to statistics? i don't know, everything that human beings do is biased anyway. now my head hurts, let's all go back and talk about weezer.

Ah, don't bother. Carligula.com has been dead for a year. There's still a good article about breast implants (by yours truly) in there somewhere though.

bwaaaahahahahahahaha

Takes a lot of meth & slaughters mice. To show what happens when you're a tweaker.

Carl, babe, I saw this picture and seriously contemplated posting it and making some crack. If only I wasn't so lazy. Blast! Thwarted again!

i'll have you know that marijuana has led to some of my better posting moments on the board. hell marijuana got me back on the bored. much more into the whole smack scene though

I'm under the impression that weed has also dilapidated your ability to spell.

i dunno, i think it kinda works. of course what's messed up is that i actually deleted "bored" the first time and obviously wrote it the same way again.