Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- CapnAmerica on Too many exemptions
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
166 Comments
Capn, has anybody checked with the Wichita Police Department to see if they have any report of any slashed tires?
Ummm CapN — you got that thing on a loop?? Something doesnt look right there!!
If you were told today that you would have to live in Kansas the rest of your life and you had your choice of the following cities to live in, which would you choose and why:
1. Overland Park/Olathe2. Topeka3. Wichita4. Salina5. Garden City
At this point in my life, I would probably choose Salina- small nuff to be comfortable and big enough to have the services one needs.
Do any of you use Facebook or My Space? I used to think it was “just for the kids” but I have found many people my own age on it and in fact a few folks I went to high school with! BTW my place is http://www.myspace.com/kevkitchen if anybody wants to check it out. I don’t log on as much as I used to but I found the experience to be a good one.
Wichita of course!
It is the best city in Kansas, progressive, rapidly expanding-which makes it exciting, bringing in new amenities and rebuilding or replacing old ones, such as the Arena, Airport, Library and etc.
Wichita is the shining star of the State. I wouldn’t live anywhere else. If I had to leave, I would choose to leave the state.
Get over yourself and try to grow up, will you Capn? You are not that important. Your childish little temper tantrum is ridiculous.
I slashed the tires.
Obviously that is not CapnAmerica.
And on multiple threads he did that.
That’ll be hard for the editors to get all removed.
They should leave it. I want ALL the people who defend the poster “kansas” who was formerly known as JM to see it. Clearly he is not gonna go gently into that good night.
Get a life babies.
Lawrence, Ks should be a choice —
I feel somewhat astonished to find myself posting a comment by a French president. Chirak was such a major league turd I find it difficult to fathom that the FNG makes so much sense.
President Sarkozy to the United States Congress.
“From the very beginning, the American dream meant proving to all mankind that freedom, justice, human rights and democracy were no utopia but were rather the most realistic policy there is and the most likely to improve the fate of each and every person.
America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: “Come, and everything will be given to you.” She said: “Come, and the only limits to what you’ll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent.” America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.
Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That’s what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible.
What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.”
Just for JR
“America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: “Come, and everything will be given to you.” She said: “Come, and the only limits to what you’ll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent.”
A pity for France
Sarkozy I mean.
Born 15 years later than the US, French democracy got it RIGHT. They have ALWAYS been better as to economic and social justice.
Or at least they have the last 200 years.
The prediction is Sarkozy will be one term and outta there.
I doubt courage and talent have much to do with you mr Heckler.
Economic Justice: Taking by force from those who work hard and giving to those who don’t feel like it.
JR
Wouldn’t you feel more at home in Castro’s Cuba or Hugo’s Venezuela?
Yeah CEOs work REAL hard don’t they Heckler?
Sarkozy didn’t mention some things.
He didn’t mention that land WAS given to those who came. And land in parcels large enough a man could feed himself and his family.
That’s for starters and all the time I have for now. Long story short, America was better when it gave men the opportunity to work for themselves as opposed to working under others.
JR
Maybe you’ve missed it but America DOES give you the opportunity to work for yourself.
JUST DO IT. Millions do.
Yeah America gave away land. Out here. Where nobody wanted to go. Imagine digging your own well to get water. Building your first home from sod or by digging a hole in a hillside. Yes, quite the give away. My ancestors did it. Not the kind of life for you though I’m guessing.
Plowing the land behind an ox or mule with a one bottom plow. Planting seed by hand. Praying to God that your crops didnt get destroyed by hail or grasshoppers. Yes, quite the give away…..
Yes, I think CEOs work hard to get where they are, but often it’s the “peter priciple”, they rise to their level of incompetence.I’m madder than hell this morning…I recieved a letter from my homeowner’s insurance that they plan to do credit checks on all their insurees to determine premium rates….what the heck does a credit score have to do with insuring my house? I plan to call American Family today and find out their reasoning behind this newest attempt to raise premiums in order to increase their bottom line. I guess it’s something that all the home insurers are doing now. I so sick of the way consumers are constantly being manipulated by corporations in order to make more money….this new ploy makes no sense, it’s like looking at your credit score to determine how much you pay for health or car insurance. All it will do is hurt people who are struggling with the high cost of living even more and discourage them from owning homes.
Mary
I’m not endorsing the policy, just explaining it.
They’ve found that people with good credit ratings file fewer claims against them.
Thanks for posting that Heckler.
Sarozy is out to change France’s image here. In doing so he reminds us of truth that we lose sight of at times. That this is a country founded on opportunity, and of unlimited opportunity. Whether we take advantage is entirely up to each person’s desires and abilities.
Mary,
I was exactly where you are about a month ago – more angry than words can describe. I (sadly) took out most of my anger on my American Family agent who has served us well for over 30 years. I apologized but wish I could take back angry words he didn’t deserve. Your post made the hair on the back of my neck stand up AGAIN! If you plan to shop around start now because by the time you receive their decision on what affect your credit scores have on your premium there is no time for any comparisons. Another part of this maddening situation that made me extremely angry!
The letter announcing using the credit scores was so poorly worded but NOTHING compared to the letter that came the day before the annual bill for the homeowner’s policy. My cost went down dramatically but the letter said, “…information in your credit report resulted in your premium being higher than it would have been otherwise.” Went on to explain this notice was required per law under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
I blew a gasket! Not for a second did it matter that the cost of my insurance went down a lot! Someone (in this case someone I had been making payments to for years and years!) was questioning my credit! They could have questioned much about me, but not my credit worthiness!
After many calls, emails, letters (not a few of which I’m NOT proud to say I showed my butt quite well in my anger!) I got this info from American Family: “Your credit is excellent with a class 2 out of 40 possible scores. Your currently getting a 24% discount out of a possible 26%. A class 1 rating would have saved $26.00 per year on your homeowner premium.”
Well, I had worked myself into a feverish pitch by the time I got that info and was able to email my agent only with apologies. I still haven’t spoken directly with him in person. And, before next year’s premium comes due I will know for a fact that I am getting the best deal possible! I hadn’t shopped before, but trust me I will now.
And this the the guy that Rudy recommended to be head of the Department of Homeland Security.
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM and RUSS BUETTNERPublished: November 8, 2007
Federal prosecutors will ask a grand jury today to indict Bernard B. Kerik, the former New York police commissioner, on charges that include tax fraud, corruption and conspiracy counts, according to people who have been briefed on the case.The grand jury, convening in Westchester County, has heard evidence about Mr. Kerik for about a year as part of a broad federal inquiry into a variety of issues, including his acceptance of $165,000 in renovations from a contractor who was seeking a city license.
Prosecutors are also seeking to charge Mr. Kerik, 52, with failing to report as income more than $200,000 in rent that they say was paid on his behalf to use a luxury Upper East Side apartment where he lived with his family around the time he left his city post, the people briefed on the case said.
Investigators have not suggested that Mr. Kerik’s benefactor, Steve Witkoff, a commercial real estate developer, was involved in any wrongdoing. If the grand jury approves an indictment, as expected, it will remain sealed until tomorrow, when Mr. Kerik would be arraigned in United States District Court in White Plains, N.Y.
Charges could complicate the presidential campaign of Mr. Kerik’s friend, patron and former business partner, Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican, whose mentorship was partly responsible for Mr. Kerik’s sharp ascent into prominence. Mr. Giuliani declined to comment through a spokeswoman yesterday, but has said he is not worried about the impact such charges might have on his campaign.
While Mr. Giuliani served as mayor, he appointed Mr. Kerik, who was a New York City detective, to a series of positions within his administration, finally naming him police commissioner in 2000. He later recommended him to President Bush, who nominated him in 2004 to be secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. But Mr. Kerik’s nomination quickly collapsed when he said he had not paid taxes on a nanny who cared for his children.
In the following days, Mr. Kerik was the subject of a stream of accusations about personal, ethical and financial improprieties.
Last year, he pleaded guilty in state court to misdemeanor charges, admitting he failed to report accepting renovations to his Bronx apartment that had been paid for by Interstate Industrial Corporation. The company, which was suspected of having ties to organized crime, was seeking a city license to operate a transfer station when it paid for the work.
Some of the tax and corruption charges expected to be considered today by the federal panel stem from the renovations and Mr. Kerik’s relationship with Interstate, including his efforts to lobby for the license on behalf of the company, which had hired his brother and a close friend, the people briefed on the case said.
The company never received the license, and city officials did not learn about the renovations until after Mr. Kerik’s nomination for the Homeland Security position collapsed in 2004.
But Mr. Giuliani has acknowledged that New York City’s investigations commissioner, Edward J. Kuriansky, told him that he had been briefed about some of Mr. Kerik’s involvement with Interstate before the police appointment. And Mr. Kuriansky’s diaries and later recollection support the commissioner’s account.
Mr. Giuliani has said that neither he nor any of his aides can recall being briefed about the Interstate matter, and that, as a bottom line, Mr. Kuriansky had cleared Mr. Kerik’s appointment.
Three times in the last two weeks, Mr. Kerik’s lawyer, Kenneth M. Breen of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker L.L.P., has met with prosecutors from the office of Michael Garcia, the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York. But Mr. Breen said that the office had not notified him that charges were imminent. “If they decide to bring charges, we will fight them, and he will win,” he said.
The charges are expected to include a count that accuses Mr. Kerik of having lied on his application to serve as Homeland Security chief, a post for which Mr. Bush nominated him after his service in training Iraqi police, those briefed on the case said.
Mr. Kerik lived in his apartment in the Bronx during a period in which he served as the city’s correction commissioner, a position he left in August 2000 when Mr. Giuliani elevated him to the police post against the advice of many in his cabinet. Crime declined during Mr. Kerik’s tenure, and he was widely credited with helping to improve police relations with many black leaders.
Mr. Kerik lived in the luxury Manhattan building around the time he left the police post for the private sector at the end of 2001. The monthly rent for the apartment, at the Lucerne, at 350 East 79th Street, was more than $9,000 and was paid for by Mr. Witkoff, a friend, said a person with knowledge of the payments.
In recent months, a steady stream of witnesses have provided evidence to prosecutors and to the grand jury. Those witnesses included Mr. Witkoff, as well as Mr. Kerik’s accountant, former subordinates at the Correction and Police Departments and former city officials to whom Mr. Kerik is alleged to have spoken on Interstate’s behalf, those briefed on the case have said.
Prosecutors have interviewed Raymond V. Casey, Mr. Giuliani’s cousin, a former city official who directed the inquiry in the late 1990s into whether Interstate was deserving of a city license, given the accusations that it had mob ties. The company has consistently denied the accusations and is not expected to be named in the indictment.
Mr. Kerik has acknowledged that in July 1999 he had dinner with Mr. Casey at a Lower Manhattan restaurant and spoke about the company. In the following weeks, Mr. Kerik phoned Dyana Lee, another assistant city commissioner involved in the inquiry, and said that as far as he knew, the company was free from organized crime ties, according to people briefed on her account.
Ms. Lee’s and Mr. Casey’s accounts are expected to figure in prosecutors’ assertion that Mr. Kerik engaged in “theft of honest services,” a charge that essentially accuses a government employee of defrauding the public by depriving it of his honest service as an official.
People briefed on the case said it would not mention discussions by the former Westchester County district attorney, Jeanine F. Pirro, about having Mr. Kerik eavesdrop on her husband, Albert, whom she suspected of having an affair, in 2005. The plan was never carried out, and Ms. Pirro has said the discussions did not constitute a crime.
Poster,
Kerik’s quite a piece of work, no? As they say, one is known by the company one keeps.
What’s been funny has been to watch Ghouliani spinning to try to minimize the seriousness of Kerik’s legal jeopardy–and his own culpability for having facilitated a highly-placed criminal.
When Kinky Friedman was running for Governor of Texas last year, his response to questions about his political inexperience was “I’m Jewish–I’ll hire good people.” With Kerik, Ghouliani has traded away his ability to make similar claims about those with whom he surrounds himself.
“What made America great was her ability to transform her own dream into hope for all mankind.”
I see the president of France used past tense.
“Born 15 years later than the US, French democracy got it RIGHT. They have ALWAYS been better as to economic and social justice.”
Yea. They just put those they disagree with under the guillotine – oh, about 20,000-40,000. Robespierre was a saint.
How many “republics” now? 5? Not to mention Napoleon’s empires and wars. Dictatorship, followed by “Republic” followed by military dictatorship . . .
Yea. They did a great job.
Hey Kev: None of those listed.
Leavenworth. It’s slightly bigger than Garden City, yet still small town. Historical (oldest/first city in Kansas), is far enough from the big city to stay small town atmosphere, yet close enough to KSC to enjoy the attractions.
Oh, and close to Missouri where I can get gas for 10 cents a gallon cheaper on avg, smokes cheaper, booze cheaper, and spend my savings in any of five Missouri private casino’s!
GMC70,
And in the U.S.? Seventy-something years of legal slavery for millions of African Americans, the genocide of the Native Americans, and the American Civil War that claimed at least 618,000 lives.
On sheer numbers, we come looking, well, considerably worse, though I agree that it’s difficult to sustain any meaningful comparison. The situations are pretty different. The French had an established monarchical order to overcome, which we did not. Small wonder it took them considerably longer to do so.
Both countries, however, are equally guilty of colonial adventures, up to and including the present day.
They’ve found that people with good credit ratings file fewer claims against them.
Posted by: Heckler | November 08, 2007 at 08:27 AM
Gee, I have zero complaints on any of my insurance rates or loan rates.Spent a life time always paying my bills in full on time, we don’t livein debt, and enjoy having all that we need. Worked hard for that goodcredit rating. About Damn time business recognized me for it. I’m a better(lower) risk all the way around. About time those who are responsible forthe higher rates – pay for the pain they are inflicting on themselvesand those like them. Why should I subsidize your lifestyle? Whyshould I sacrifice what I deserve – and you don’t?
Sorry Mary. This is one case where you reap what you sow.
Liberals: You need to find a way to exploit this one. It would be for the “poor” people. I’m surprised you haven’t yet.
Heckler, good article on Sarkozy.
Glad you were able to get JR to read it.
Must really stick in his craw to hear the truth about American history from the President of France!
In the ole days, people made money the old fashioned way – THEY EARNED IT!
It is very interesting that France selected Sarkozy. The French complain about the threat of having their taxes lowered – they like their government funded entitlements. Sarkozy seems to be of the conservative, cut taxes, promote self-reliance, mode.
I understand that Mr. Sarkozy is a very charismatic character, but he does seem to be departure from usual French politics.
If you pay your bills on time Mary, you have nothing to worry about.
A good credit score can lower your insurance premiums.
A bad score can raise them.
Deadbeats who don’t pay their bills on time are more likely to make-up claims and try to collect free insurance money.
So, the premium rates for deadbeats are higher.
And if your score is too bad, the insurance company may not even issue a policy to you. They could even cancel a policy for an existing policy holder.
Claims history also has an impact. Allstate was well known for cancelling policies after a large claim is filed or after two or more smaller claims are filed in one year.
At State Farm, after so many years of good premium payment history and good claim history, they actually give you a no-cancellation guarantee.
Shop around Mary, maybe you will find a better deal somewhere else, like with State Farm.
Insurance companies can’t survive if their policy holders get paid more in claims then what they pay in premiums.
The credit score is used to weed out the deadbeats who are likely to file false claims, in order to keep the rates lower for the good policy holders.
The 2004 article on Obama is pretty close to what I think, but Obama is NOW currently a Dove, unless he changed his mind again. Only God or Allah would know what Obama would actually DO if he was President.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
Don’t know if we can find all 60 nukes in Pakistan and take em out, but if Pakistan becomes like Iran, controlled by fanatics, can we afford to sit back and HOPE they won’t use those nukes in a terrorist strike somewhere?
I think American Way wrote yesterday about JFK’s warning to Cuba – Any attack on the US from Cuba would be considered to be an attack on the US from the USSR. There were not too many possible sources for Nukes in the 1960’s, so we had some certainty on where any nuke originated.
Today, a rogue nuke trucked in from Mexico, or unloaded from a fishing boat from sea, and detonated in any major US city, will we know where it came from? Do we just say if we get nuked then we automatically assume it was:
a)Iranb)Pakistanc)N Koread)A & Be)A & Cf)B & Cg)All of the aboveh)Otheri)Wait for the attacker to annouce responsibility, then attack them, if we can find them.
Makes it difficult to issue a JFK-type deterrence proclamation.
Guess we could just TALK our enemies into being peaceful.
Mary
Every few years my wife starts cussing about our insurance premiums and does some shopping around. Always comes back the same. We’re getting a pretty good deal from Farm Bureau. On everything.
Don’t know if they are looking at credit ratings.
Yeah Max.
They earned it working…FOR THEMSELVES.
NOT for someone else.
Heckler? Some of my people got here in 1649. Some more in 1737.They drank the sweet water of wells they dug themselves,FOR themselves. They helped their neighbors dig out homes and build barns.
They didn’t have much. What they had they shared. They bended knee nor punched a clock for no man.
We could get back more toward the pride of such a life. But we have to get the damn corporations outta the way to do it.
Where I’m going is a little socialism saves capitalism and consevatism for all, not just for those who “play the game”.
Good retort to GMC re France CF. Much as I would have said.
the deadbeats who are likely to file false claims, in order to keep the rates lower for the good policy holders.
Posted by: Your Good Neighbor
It is more than false claims. The rates for most insurance are based upon historical statistical analysis of people who file claims.
The statistics do not lie. They reflect that people with lower credit scores are more APT to have car accidents, houses broken into, catch fire, or medical claims for injuries, life style medical problems, etc.. etc…
If you are more of a risk, then it is only fair that you and your type will cost more to insure.
People with good credit history, are financially astute, manage their resources better, are frugal, and drive safer and smoke less. So they enjoy lower rates for all types of insurance.
It’s not a rich or poor thing.
It’s a lifestyle thing.
It is very interesting that France selected Sarkozy.Posted by: Steven Davis | November 08, 2007 at 10:12 AM
I’m surprised when Libs are always surprised to learn how many people are Conservative.
Sarkozy must have lied during his election campaign or just changed his position several times. It CAN’T be possible for there to be so many Conservative Frenchmen!
So, Max you are arguing that French politics have been conservative over the last 50 years? That one would be difficult to defend, even for someone like you who lives in a make-believe world.
Max,
A good job of helping us understand the increasing complexity of dealing with both terrorist and rogue nations. I understand a blog’s limits in developing complex issues, so this isn’t a swipe. But you haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the problem of defense. Your succinct post defies simplistic, shallow, canned and monolithic retorts that seem to appear here too frequently. Thanks, and keep up the challenging work, please.
Today, a rogue nuke trucked in from Mexico, or unloaded from a fishing boat from sea, and detonated in any major US city, will we know where it came from?
Uh huh Max.
So we have to war with how many countries to address that? YOUR way I mean? How much furhter regional and global destabilization along the way?
Close the border tight. Make the Coast guard more than search and rescue. Screen all cargo coming to the US.
Far cheaper than military options.
>>Uh huh Max.
So we have to war with how many countries to address that? YOUR way I mean? How much furhter regional and global destabilization along the way?
Close the border tight. Make the Coast guard more than search and rescue. Screen all cargo coming to the US.
Far cheaper than military options.<<______
Well, Max, though I *thought* your post defied simplistic, shallow, canned and monolithic retorts, I see I was mistaken.
“A good credit score can lower your insurance premiums.”
Not necessarily. I have a friend with excellent credit and an almost perfect credit score. The cost of her home insurance increased.
I have several friends who have switched to new companies with lower rates.
C’mon, CF.
If you really wanna compare numbers, then, by all means add the Napoleonic wars, and the millions of lives lost there.
But that’s not really the point. Have there been growing pains? Sure. And slavery was a blot that can never be erased; a very unfortunate reality of the compromise necessary to the Republic’s existance at all. Ultimate, yes, it took a war to end it, and even then much of hte nation proceeded to reinstitute slavery under the guise of Jim Crow and segregation. Shameful, to be sure.
But the bottom line is that the American Republic has worked. Not perfectly, and not without costs. But it worked.
The French experiment was in large part a failure, at least in it’s first 50 years or so. And it was an unmitigated disaster not only for those Parisians unlucky enough to be caught up in the reign of terror, but for all of Europe as Napoleon had to be twice defeated; a war which spilled over even onto this continent (the War of 1812).
So spare me the Francofile’s yearning for the guillotine.
BTW – You’ve heard, of course, that France has a national security warning system too? Ours is based on color;
their’s is much more straightforward, and has only three levels: appease, surrender, and collaborate!
;-)
JR
My point was that the free land was hardly a “give away”, it was more a “make a go of it if you can”.
As for your example of your ancestors helping each other and sharing- that’s what neighbors do, they share the WORK as well as the STUFF. Hardly a good lesson on the brand of Socialism that you advocate.
Mary,
I learned that with American Family if you’ve used credit wisely and in fact don’t use it often, that is a negative! Go figure. It won’t make me change my wise use of credit but I will shop until I get the 26% discount I deserve! They can then see how chasing away their very best customers affects their bottom line!
Max,
What saved us from annihilation during the cold was was mutually assured destruction. This was based upon an ability to identify a source of a weapon. But how would we have known if it came from the sea? Would we have known a soviet submarine from another opponents?
Did Kennedy KNOW Russia was behind any launch from Cuba? Could he be 100% certain?
I think we could still give Iran a strong warning. Any rational leader would have to consider the repercussion of even secretly attacking us. There would always be a little doubt in their minds that they could get away with it.
And if their leader IS irrational?
Well, there really is nothing pre-emptively to stop that, short of starting a war ourselves. And then who would we be? Bush?
Iran is going to get the bomb. Accept that notion and go from there. We either start WWIII now to stop them, or we accept it and move on.
Our blue people were crying out loud a few months ago about the terrible, awful, war in Iraq. (Before Hillary changed all the blue people’s minds to 2013.)
There is no freaking way they will not protest a pre-emptive strike on Iran.
Even with the CIA reports. We are sheep now. So we might as well try to be smart sheep. We will be attacked eventually. So be ready to deal with that at home, and the FDR December 8th speech to follow.
Thanks David, I think.
Sorry I didn’t post an in-depth report for you. Tough to do much other then scratch the surface in this blog format.
The point was to highlight the problem, and to think about the options, and to better understand the Presidential Candidates positions on this issue.
The link to Obama’s thoughts from 3 years ago, is close to my opinion on this issue.
To do nothing but HOPE that nothing will happen to the US will do nothing to keep America safe.
There is no easy answer on how to stop the proliferation of Nuclear weapons in order to prevent terrorists or rogue nations from acquiring them – and then using them on US.
Either a clear defensive and assured response posture, or a pre-emptive posture is needed, in my opinion.
Obama in the article quoted, said what I believe, he would error on the side of pre-emption.
Why? Pre-emption is more likely to result in the loss of fewer lives. To understand this, you must understand the devastation that would occur if a nuclear bomb were to be exploded in some major American city.
Damage from conventional first strikes against America, like Pearl Harbor and 9/11, are so very small compared to a nuclear blast.
Should we wait for the next Pearl Harbor or 9/11 to occur before taking action, knowing that the next first strike could be 1,000 times more deadly with 3 million deaths as compared to 3,000?
“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in,” he said.
“On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran…”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story?ctrack=2&cset=true
Close the border tight. Make the Coast guard more than search and rescue. Screen all cargo coming to the US.
Far cheaper than military options.
Posted by: J R | November 08, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Glad to hear we now agree on sealing the US borders JR.
This will also help solve the illegal immigration problem, and make it more difficult to import illegal drugs, in addition to making America safer.
Just shutting the door on America is not an adequate defense, however.
Obama in the article quoted, said what I believe, he would error on the side of pre-emption.
I believe that is what Congress authorized and Bush ordered in Iraq.
Well, Max, though I *thought* your post defied simplistic, shallow, canned and monolithic retorts, I see I was mistaken.Posted by: David Atkins | November 08, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Oh, I’m sorry David. Because you posted your opinion, that no one could have an opinion that counts – we were not supposed to respond to Max?
I’m truly sorry. Guess I broke a blog rule?
Could you next time respond more quickly to every post? That way I have time to not even read the other posters opinion, after you advise us. Then I wouldn’t respond.
Thanks!
Today, a rogue nuke trucked in from Mexico, or unloaded from a fishing boat from sea, and detonated in any major US city, will we know where it came from? Do we just say if we get nuked then we automatically assume it was:
a. Israel.
We could probably make an educated guess by analyzing the fallout. If the Bush administration were still in charge, it wouldn’t really matter who actually set off the bomb; the accusation would depend on idealogy.
AmWay,
I’m forced to agree with you that another attack–and probably one more substantial than 9/11–is inevitable. With the irrationality of Iran’s regime and the disregard for life, I’m afraid that threatenting the microwaving of the entire nation will not be a sufficient deterrent. I’m not suggesting that we should remove that option, I just don’t think it will be very effective. At this point, I’m really hoping that our Intel people are working hard with people inside Iran who want the regime toppled and gone. That would make things so much cleaner and easier. As I said to Max, there is no easy, shallow or monolithic answer, and bringing everyone home, pulling up the welcome mat and hunkering behind a version of the Maginot Line is, well… not very clever.
There’s another significant dimension to all this that bears being always included in this type of discussion. Terrorists in general, and especially those born in the Middle East have little or no regard for human life, even their own, as is evidenced by mothers, with their blessing, sending their children out to destroy themselves. This is part of the monumental clash of Western vs. Arabic values. If we are going to gain peace with that part of the world, we essentially only have two ways of doing it:
1. Find something to do to them that is painful enough that the consequnce we measure out will override their value system–or should I say, lack of value system, from a Western perspective–which doesn’t prize life. Or,
2. Work on the long term solution of transforming a centuries-old cultural into one that prizes and values human life and holds it as sacred. Honestly, that’s going to be really hard to come by, since our own culture has de-valued human life more and more over the past 40 to 50 years. The US value system, as well as that of Western Europe and Western Civ in general, now prizes the right of the individual over everything. In fact, individual rights has become the trump card to everything and has become for the left the fundamental hill on which to die. So sacred and protected is this selfishness that I can even imagine responses to this post suggesting that I want to take away freedoms based on what I just pointed out. But ultimately, individual rights wielded with selfish, wreckless abandon leaves us unable and unwilling to influence anyone else’s values, and leaves us utterly defenseless. If we continue in this direction, the terrorists and irrational regime leaders can save their bomb-making money and spend it on something else because we’ll simply devolve and disintegrate in 50 years.
Dear Lowly Posters,
Ah, yours is the hard life.
American Way, I understand the position you stated above.
I think the decision needs to be clearly communicated to all, whether it is pre-emption or an assured response position. But a DECISION must be made – one way or the other, in order to prepare the country for one approach vs the other.
PRE-EMPTION:
Will involve the loss of thousands of American lives, and thousands of lives of our enemies. Civilians are always a casualty of war, and thousands of civilians will die as well.
The up-side – A nuclear attack on America will be far less likely.
The President and party in power will catch political heck from the press and the people for the thousands of deaths and billions of dollars wasted, when America was not even under attack.
ASSURED RESPONSE:America does nothing until a first strike is made. One Nuclear bomb in NYC or LA could kill 10 million people. We may NOT know who attacked us. We strike back at whoever we think it was, and millions more die in America’s nuclear response.
The President and party in power will catch political heck from the press and the people for the millions of deaths and billions of dollars required to rebuild, when America failed to do anything to prevent the attack.
The upside – Maybe the US won’t be attacked.
The perceived likelihood for a nuclear attack on America will be a big factor in making the decision to go with Pre-emption or Assured Response.
Remember though, even a 5% chance for millions dying in a nuclear attack will be Less Acceptable then a 95% chance for thousands dying in a pre-emptive strike.
If you think the odds for a nuclear attack on America are 0.1%, you may decide to wait it out.
But, if you are wrong, then millions die as opposed to thousands dying.
Now you can see why Obama would err on the side of pre-emption.
This is a classic dilemma equation, with millions of lives in the balance.
If you were responsible for making this decision, what would you decide?
Fortunately, none of us will be making this decision. However, ALL of us will be complaining, whichever strategy is taken.
My guess, the Democrats will flip-flop on this dilemma and no one will know where they stand.
Obama right now, has reversed himself from 2004 and is against pre-emption on Iran, and for it on Pakistan?
The Iranian leader has directly threatened one nation on earth with destruction. That nation has already performed a practice run to destroy the nuclear forces which are being built to destroy them.
The USA, should be, by now, fully prepared for that eventuality.Farshtaist?
Are you ready to defend your ally?
I’m sorry, this blog discussion is entirely too civil today.
I must leave for now.
Flame away!
No, Max! Don’t leave! The JM or one of her/his assigns will be back soon, I’m sure!
Ah, the good old days. The troll posts over my name and I have to log on to see what I “said.”
Now I don’t even get to see what I said, because it gets pulled before I can even read it.
BTW, Taz, I accept your apology, dipswitch.
Capn,
O, you just said your typical stuff. No one paid any attention.
I’M JOKING. PLEASE DON’T FLAME. People knew you didn’t do it. I’m sure they did.
Heh, I’m no early riser, David. Far from it.
If it’s before 8 AM in the morning, I didn’t post it.
I’m surprised that Nathan hasn’t already chimed in with how we provoked the troll into posting over my name.
Sorry Capn, but wouldn’t that be more a liberal position? Blaming someone else…….
Sorry, tried to pull previous post back, but it got away. Smart mouth. trying to refrain. counting to 10; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
I thought libertarian/conservatives were all for individual rights. That’s incorrect?
The needs of the group supercede the rights of the individual? Sounds pretty socialistic to me. Oh forgive me, it is just “selfish” individuals’ rights that should be abridged. I anticipate it will be very easy to determine who the “selfish” ones are.
Well Mr Davis, what if I am “selfish”? This is America, don’t I have a RIGHT to be “selfish”?
Who ordained you God or an authority to JUDGE?
Would that be the un-Christian, atheist democrat party?
Christians cannot judge, but the democRATS can? Is that how this works?
You get the RIGHT to JUDGE, which gives you the RIGHT to declare me SELFISH, which provides you a legal basis to REACH INTO MY POCKET TO STEAL MY MONEY TO FUND YOUR “RELIGIOUS SOCIAL PROGRAMS”???
The audacity causes my caps.
Insert President Bush in place of Musharraf, and it sounds eerily familiar.
“In his emergency declaration, Musharraf, a key U.S. ally against al-Qaida and the Taliban, accused the judiciary of hindering his government in fighting terrorism. He has also said the emergency was necessary to maintain political stability and preserve progress toward restoring full democracy.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071108/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_lawyers__struggle
Here’s the real reason for all these terrorist warnings today!http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071108/pl_nm/iraq_usa_funding_dc_1
Throw the flag against: Hillary Clinton
Call: Intentional grounding.
What happened: Clinton says legislation that’s working its way through Congress would protect consumers from high gasoline prices by making price gouging a federal crime.
Why that’s wrong: First, federal investigations have never proved gasoline price gouging. No less a referee than Bill Richardson, the former energy secretary under President Clinton, said in debate earlier this year that the oil companies weren’t gouging. Second, the congressional proposals define gouging in such “hazy terms” that they’d be difficult to enforce or uphold in court even if found, according to http://www.factcheck.org, an operation of the Annenberg Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
Penalty: Clinton’s statement is standard political posturing in reaction to high gasoline prices, and her promise of pending relief isn’t believable. Penalize her campaign 10 yards’ worth of credibility and loss of a turn to speak in the next debate.
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
I think you guys are going about this Kansas thing all wrong.
You should look at yourselves and figure out what it is you are doing to cause Kansas to do this to you.
When you figure that out, stop doing it.
Hmmm….
Now where have I heard that line of reasoning before?
well the enviromentalist have finally got what they wanted, gasoline above $3.00 a gallon.
I’m forced to agree with you that another attack–and probably one more substantial than 9/11–is inevitable. With the irrationality of Iran’s regime and the disregard for life, I’m afraid that threatenting the microwaving of the entire nation will not be a sufficient deterrent.
You’re sucking up propaganda David Akins.
http://picasaweb.google.com/aatrvash/Iran02?authkey=WHfBV-cDZ2E
Is this the country that has no regard for life? I also recommend to you the movie — “The Red Shoes”
Nearly two dozen illegal immigrants were arrested Wednesday, accused of using fake security badges to work in critical areas of Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport. The 23 illegal workers were employed by Ideal Staffing Solutions Inc., whose corporate secretary and office manager also were arrested after an eight-month investigation.[It’s about time we started looking into falsified security badges for the dozens of illegal aliens working in our international airports, now that our national security is becoming an issue.][Most of the cab drivers at Kansas City International airport are Muslims. They want your tax money to pay for foot-washing stands in the airport, so that they will be clean enough to pray to Allah that Americans die in large numbers.]
That substantial attack idea seems to be one that is popular with the likes of Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Michael Savage… I dont even think Rush has gone that far… yet… It is intentional HYPE to keep people afraid… verry afraid!!
The entire Muslim Prayer business is becoming quite a fiasco… I do not believe that the Public Dollar should be required to pay for such things as foot washing basins, anymore than the Public Dollar should pay for a private room with a Crucifix, or any other religious ceremonial area in a Public place.
On the other hand, if a private Muslim group wished to RENT space at an airport, like any other business, and put in foot washing basins, then I dont think that would be a problem… sort of like a Chapel for tarvellers… I could see that happening for other religions as well, and I have seen that at some truck stops, in fact.
Boxer: Bush Administration Hiding Global Warming Data From AmericansBy: Logan Murphy on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 at 12:02 PM – PST
On Wednesday’s Hardball Senator Barbara Boxer talked with Chris Matthews about testimony given to the Senate Environment Committee by CDC Director Julie Gerberding about global warming and related health issues. Boxer says that Gerberding admitted that her original testimony had been heavily redacted by the White House and much of that was information on the public health impact of Global Warming.
When a letter was sent to President Bush asking for clarification on the redacted portions of the testimony, Boxer claims she received a letter back from White House Counsel, Fred Fielding, refusing her request claiming….you guessed it — Executive Privilege.
Boxer: “…Now we pay the salary of the head of the Center for Disease Control, and we deserve to have that answer for the American people. So yes, I think they’re hiding this. I think they’re hiding a lot of things – it’s their way, it’s their habit, it’s wrong.”
Download (182) | Play (178) Download (87) | Play (94) (h/t Heather)
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/08/boxer-bush-administration-hiding-global-warming-data-from-americans/
Iran’s flaky President is nothing but a figurehead, even if Iran had nukes, he couldn’t order a strike. The crazy prs. to be afraid of, lives in Washington.
Steven,
Thanks for thinking about what I posted. It seems you may be getting closer to the fundamental question that must be addressed if Western Civilization in general, and the United States in particular is to survive. The question is this:
Can a free culture, nation, or society survive if there is no fundamental agreement on morality or ethics?
Expanding that, whose individual rights are going to win out over another’s when they come in conflict based on conflicting values? If we all operate from mutually held values system, then individuals, groups, bodies, or entities are better able to self-govern without the need of external government controls. To some degree, we are all able to either deny our personal agendas for the advancement of the shared moral/values system. We know when we should advance our personal cause, and when we should restrain it. That may sound socialistic to a careless reader, but note the emphasis, indeed, the necessity of what I’ve suggested, is placed on the individual. Government has no involvement here. Government, in a society with mutually held core values, only protects those values from people who would destroy them. Government, then, is freeing individuals pursue their goals in the larger context of shared values, not insisting on conformity to government sanctioned values, which is a building block of Socialism.
So again, I say, the greatest issue facing the US, which is unarguably divided at this time, is whether we can agree on a mutually held morality. If we cannot do this, we will be forced away from a Republic/Democracy, and forced toward some expression of government dominance of the society—-the opposite of individual rights.
At this point in our history, that journey is demonstrated by the deep division played out in abortion rights, entitlements, the re-definition of marriage and similar morality-based issues. In time past, moral fissures were played out through slavery and other issues. Those issues played out in colossal collisions of values at election times, and even in a war between the states. The question remains, when one individual’s rights come in conflict with another’s, how do we decide who wins, since, in 2007, we no longer hold the same core values?
Here are a few more things to ponder, Steven:
* Can we survive over the long term if we don’t have commonly held beliefs?
* If we don’t have commonly held beliefs, how do we acquire them?
* Can government cause us to share a common values system, or will it take something more powerful than government?
* Can individuals’ values be transformed by edict or force of either a person or system (external), or is the exchange of one values system for another something that occurs internally?
* How did the US survive for over 200 years, and can we survive, as we are, for another 200?
* Can individual rights be held as absolute in a society that has no agreement on foundational ethics or morality?
* What are the minimal core values necessary for a free society to survive?
* Can government provide answers to any or all of these questions, and if it can, how?
With the democrats controlling the government, it is never too early to review your portfolio.
There are pro’s and con’s to be weighed and still the possibility that Mrs. Clinton may not completely roll back the tax cuts which expire. But it might be a good year to take a capital gain at 15%, on enjoy the holidays for one last time in style.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The leading Democratic candidates for president have said they’d favor higher investment taxes on upper-income taxpayers – and Wall Streeters don’t like it.
“With the very real prospect of an increase in the capital gains tax, anyone who is long stock will probably give serious consideration to taking profits sometime before the end of 2008,” said Ted Weisberg, founder of brokerage house Seaport Securities, in an e-mail to CNNMoney.com.
The push to generate more tax revenue comes at a time when the federal budget will face stiff challenges from at least three factors: the likely reform of the Alternative Minimum Tax; the rising costs of Medicare and Social Security; and a growing bill coming due on U.S. debt issued to foreign investors.There are studies showing that over the long-term there is a strong relationship between stock prices and tax rates. University of Texas economics professor Clemens Sialm looked at the effects of tax changes on stock prices from 1917 to 2004. He found that stock prices tend to be lower when taxes are relatively high.Should there be a tax rate increase in the offing, it is likely that there will be some selling in the run-up to the anticipated change. “It could be a negative on the market in the quarter before an increase,” said Charles Biderman, CEO of fund flow tracker TrimTabs.Some mutual fund managers might take the opportunity to trim or reallocate in advance of a rate increase.”If tax rates are likely to go up, it may also make financial sense to pay the tax early at the lower rate. We do believe that the current maximum rate of 15% (less in the lower tax brackets) is as low as it will be anytime soon,” mutual fund manager Ron Muhlenkamp wrote in a recent letter to shareholders in the Muhlenkamp Fund.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/07/pf/taxes/investment_rate_change_effect/index.htm?postversion=2007110815
It is my take that you are being intellectually dishonest David.
From what few of your posts I have seen, I would say that my concept of core values and yours would match each other in almost no way. Time, and further posts will tell.
My take so far is that your request for discussion of core values will be followed by a long list of YOUR values and why they are what we should all espouse.
David,
I believe it is too late for the discussion you are seeking. We need to divide up the nation by states into two new nations.
The new United Blue Socialist States of America and the United Red States of America.
The divide is too great. I am not willing to compromise MY values, and I am certain they are not willing to sacrifice theirs for mine (and why should they?).
We’ve had maps posted here before on how the two new countries would look, but basically, if you like an ocean view, you are living blue.
It should be an amicablesplit.
Mr. Door King,
You chose an interesting place to clip the quote. Have you been studying at MSNBC-U? Here’s your clipped quote and comment:_________________
I’m forced to agree with you that another attack–and probably one more substantial than 9/11–is inevitable. With the irrationality of Iran’s regime and the disregard for life, I’m afraid that threatenting the microwaving of the entire nation will not be a sufficient deterrent.
You’re sucking up propaganda David Akins.
[website link inserted here with beautiful pics of, I presume, Iran, or at least somewhere in the middle east]
Is this the country that has no regard for life?_________________
Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to correct what you misinterpreted. Here’s the context of my argument, which appeared below where you evidently stopped reading:
“Terrorists in general, and especially those born in the Middle East have little or no regard for human life, even their own, as is evidenced by mothers, with their blessing, sending their children out to destroy themselves.”
I don’t think it’s necessary to post links documenting specific instances of this, since there have already been so many that it is accepted as general knowledge. I stand firmly on my assertion that Western Judeo-Christian beliefs have traditionally embraced the sanctity of life, while other cultures, particularly in the middle east have, and continue to do substantially other than that.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, Door King, but in this instance, you have been well-served to read a few more of mine before un-responsively responding.
“We’ve had maps posted here before on how the two new countries would look, but basically, if you like an ocean view, you are living blue.
It should be an amicable”split.
Sounds good to me. When do we start?
“Western Judeo-Christian beliefs have traditionally embraced the sanctity of life”
“Kill ‘em all. Let God sort ‘em out” “patritotic” bumper sticker
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” Ann Coulter.
David asks, “The question remains, when one individual’s rights come in conflict with another’s, how do we decide who wins, since, in 2007, we no longer hold the same core values?”
*****
Your question implies that in the past we had MORE agreement as to what our core values were than we do today.
I see no evidence that this is true. Surely we hold more values in common now than in 1860 when the North and the South were pitted against each other in mortal combat.
In the colonial period, the Catholics of Maryland persecuted the Protestants who persecuted each other for disagreeing on how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
This idea that we’re now just a bunch of warring “tribes” headed for barbarism and anarchy is pure CON speak–cf. E. D. Hirsch, William Bennett, Ann Coulter etc.
David,
Thank you for your post.
I think I would disagree with a few of your primary assumptions. The first one I question, is if we are really as deeply divided as the media tells us we are. In his book, _Microtrends_, Mark J. Penn (the Clinton’s Karl Rove) argues that the proportion of voters who are middle of the road, independents, is as great now as ever before. It is more entertaining to contend that we are hopelessly divided and offer cable news shows that amount to at least two people yelling at each other rather than acknowledge we have shared interests and that we can, and do, act in accordance with those shared interests. Unfortunately our politicians believe the deeply divided partisan myth, too.
The Bush administration according to this author is the first one to act as though the nation is deeply divided and that reaching across the aisle is for sissies:
http://wamu.org/programs/dr/ (the 11:00 a.m. program)
I think it can be argued that the extreme parisanship of the Bush administration is one reason why it is such a complete failure — at least in the arena of public approval.
As a personal opinion, I don’t think the government has the authority to intrude upon individual rights unless a given person is a danger in terms of harming/killing themselves or others. Reasonable people can disagree on how much harm is needed to trigger government action.
The abortion question is a case of two people’s interests that are in direct conflict (if we see the fetus as a person) AND I do not know how one can ever resolve satisfactorily these competing interests to everyone’s satisfaction. Therefore, I see it as futile to even try. Reasonable people can disagree on this divisive issue also.
As for your wrong-headed and racist assertion that Islam breeds suicide bombers like no other culture, see Robert Pape’s groundbreaking book, “Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.”
http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/1400063175
What Pape, a moderate conservative, discovers in his research is that suicide bombers are found wherever invaders have occupied another’s land.
Or as it is reviewed on AntiWar.com, a libertarian website, Robert A. Pape, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and author of the study Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism, explains why it is that suicide bombers do what they do: To rid their land of foreign combat forces. That’s it. Not religion. Not virgins in Heaven. Not Democracy. Not Freedom™. Not women’s rights… Occupation.
The Japanese Kamikaze were not Islamic. Neither are the Tamil Tigers who are in fact Marxist.
Ch. 1: The Growing ThreatPape claims to have compiled the world’s first “database of every suicide bombing and attack around the globe from 1980 through 2003 — 315 attacks in all” (3). “The data show that there is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions. . . . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland” (4). It is important that Americans understand this growing phenomenon (4-7).
Three historical episodes are introduced for purposes of comparison: the ancient Jewish Zealots (11-12; see also 33-34), the 11th-12th-century Ismaili Assassins (12-13; see also 34-35), and the Japanese kamikazes (13; see also 35-37). There was no suicide terrorism from 1945 to 1980 (13-14). Modern suicide terrorism began in Lebanon in the 1980s (14), followed by cases involving the Tamil Tigers (July 1990), Israel (1994), Persian Gulf (1995), Turkey (1996), Chechnya (2000), Kashmir (2000), and the U.S. (2001) (14-15). Five campaigns were still ongoing in early 2004, when Dying to Win was being written (15-16). Traditional explanations focus on individual motives, but fail to explain the specificity of suicide terrorism (16-17). Economic explanation of this phenomenon yields “poor” results (17-19). Explanation of suicide terrorism as a form of competition between radical groups is dubious (19-20). Pape proposes an alternative explanation of the “causal logic of suicide terrorism”: at the strategic level, suicide terrorism exerts coercive power against democratic states to cease occupation of territory terrorists consider homeland, while at the social level it depends on mass support and at the individual level it is motivated by altruism (20-23). “The bottom line, then, is that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation” (23).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism
*****
I know it’s a lot easier to judge 1 billion Muslims based on the actions of 19 on Sept. 11, 2000, but it’s not logical.
AT LAST!
In his FACE!
Congress hands Bush first veto overrideBy CHARLES BABINGTONAssociated Press Writer
Ron Edmonds
WASHINGTON – President Bush suffered the first veto override of his seven-year-old presidency Thursday as the Senate enacted a $23 billion water resources bill despite his protest.
I just hope the Muslims have enough sense not to judge us Christians on the basis of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and George W. Bush.
JR,
I’m thinking my presence here is going to be very frustrating for you and JM, because I’m probably not going to easily fit into one of the convenient boxes in which you like to place people. While I admit that is indeed convenient, it’s a bit shallow and and thoughtless, and allows you spit out a pre-contrived statement that matches which ever one of your hot topic buttons just got pushed. I’m afraid I’ll push you somewhat beyond that if you want me to respond to what you post. If you want to contribute with valuable ideas, you’re going to have articulate them in a way that is not disingenuous. Most of us see through that trifling and find it tiring. It will stretch you, but I’m certainly hoping you can rise above the level of drive-by doggerel I’ve come to know as your “style.” I don’t care for cheap shots.
You asserted I was intellectually dishonest, but are unable to indicate a point of dishonesty. Further, you’ve assumed, as you are wont to do, that you can place me in a box either in opposition to, or in agreement with your political positions. Actually, the post to which you are responding didn’t reveal a lot about my personal position, although I’d be happy to share it openly. The particular post to which you refer had a lot questions in it. You chose, again in the way that you have consistently done since I started observing and contributing this blog, to assign and project your cobalt-colored lens view of things on to me, hoping to somehow discredit the questions. Tell me, how do you discredit questions?
I don’t like bullying, and I tend to respond in such a way that discourages it. If you like debate and can be civil, responsive and honest, I’ll enjoy the exchange. If you can’t, I’ll make sure to expose it.
Yup, JR.
I wonder how Tobacco Todd voted on that?
David–
Was there a point to your 3:58 post?
Unlike in your current job, you don’t get paid by the time you take up here . . .
This guy some kinda wheel Capn?
He clearly fancies himself.
The Capn is correct, Pape’s book should be required reading for those interested in understanding suicide bombing.
The longest running series of suicide bombing has been done by the Tamil Tigers who see the Sri Lankan government as occupying land they claim as their own.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamil_Eelam
Steven,
Thanks for the response. I’m hopeful, for the sake of the US, that what you posit in terms of us not being as deeply divided as the media would present it, that you are correct. I understand and agree that the media has to find some kind of narrative around which to hang the news and information they distribute. And sensational, dramatic screaming matches boost ratings.
Having said that, I think the importance of the questions I posed is still, well… important. Not just for the US, but for Western culture and how we live in a now-shrunken world. They are question I wrestle with, and hope there are others doing the same.
David:
I gotta agree with my more liberal brothren here, David. I suspect that there is far more concensus on the foundational principles than you realize. Even on issues upon which we may disagree (i.e. abortion), the divisions are not such that would lead to actual geo-political division. Most of us, despite the silliness that goes on here, recognize that reasonable people disagree.
When it comes to fundamental principles, I have little doubt that 95% or more of us, on either side of our somewhat imaginary line, agree on the vast majority of those fundamental principles. We fight over the details, the edges, over where the lines are. Those details are not unimportant, and the fact that we fight so much over them reflects the fundamental agreement over things that for so much of the world are not settled.
For example: All of us recognize that the functioning of our political system demands that political leaders respect the outcome of elections. Despite the occasional silliness which is posted here, we all know that come Jan. 2009, Bush will step down. Further, should by some unimaginable circumstance he attempts to stay in office, I’m certain we’d be nearly universal in opposing such an action. However much we may disagree over the particular policies he espouses, we all recognize that untimately it is the result of elections and the rule of law which decide who will rule.Look at much of the rest of the world; this is hardly a settled question there.
Another example: there is universal agreement that searches ought to be limited to circumstances where probable cause exists, and generally conducted with a warrant. The details, such as just when PC exists, and what the warrant exceptions might be adn whetehr they apply in a particular case, are important and we spend a great deal of time and effort arguing (and litigating) them. But the fundamental principles are unquestioned.
Again, look at much of the rest of the world; challenging a government search as without authority will get you stupid looks – and perhaps shot.
I could go on, but I hope you get my point. Very few, if any, of the things which so infuriate us are “deal-breakers,” are so fundamental that we’d risk civil war over. And that is as it should be.
As much as we like to wring our hands over our political divisions, the sky really isn’t falling. The Republic (sometimes despite itself) will toddle on.
An interesting book that explores the divide in American politics is “Welcome to the Homeland” written by a very moderate liberal, Brian Mann (he likes Liebermann, for instance).
Mann argues that it is not the blue state-red state divide that matters; it is the rural-urban divide.
The political system by virtue of the electoral college (every state no matter how small gets two Senators) vastly over-represents the rural at the expense of the urban.
This is why tax dollars flow out of cities to the country-side, at the same time that the rural homelanders demand “lower taxes.”
Thanks, GMC. I’m sure by now you’ve noted my response to Steven.
_Welcome to the Homeland_ is a good book, also. Part of it is played out in the Riverside neighborhood in Wichita – the author has family here.
I heard some professor on npr the other day who was making a convincing case that too few people control an unfairly large percentage of electoral college votes. The population ratios between states were much closer when the electoral college was implemented than they are now. IIRC, this guy was saying 17% of the people control over 40% of the electoral college vote. That would seem fundamentally unfair to me — even though Kansas benefits from this discrepency.
Holy mackeral!
Phase II of the Senate Intelligence Committe (you know, the one that Senator Pat “Suck Up” Roberts-R, Obviously refused to issue) is finally out.
It’s been out since September.
This report focussed on what did the Intelligence services tell Worst. President. Ever. before he chose to completely ignore them and invade Iraq anyway.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/prewar.pdf
I have summarized their findings:
Conclusions–the Intel community agreed
* that democracy in Iraq would be a long difficult turbulent process.
*that US forces would be propping up Iraqi gov’t for a long time.
*that Al Qaeda would increase the number of attacks against American in Iraq and would operate freely in the countryside.
*that rogue ex-military would join terrorism to oppose American occupation.
*that Al Qaeda would take advantage of the US focus in Iraq to rebuild its base in Afghanistan.
*that outrage over the US occupation would increase support for terrorist organizations who oppose the US and would benefit hard-line jihadis in more democratic countries.
*that neighboring countries would foment strife in Iraq.
*that in response to US invasion and occupation, small states would speed up programs to develop WMD’s to deter US aggression.
*that the Iraqi Army should be purged of its command structure but otherwise kept intact (this recommendation was ignored).
*that oil revenue would fall far short of funding reconstruction (Wolfowitz said the opposite, he was wrong).
*that rebuilding infrastructure would be critical to the success of the occupation.
Well, gee, why would Roberts want to stonewall a report like that?
Just because everything the intelligence committee warned about happened and all the bland assurances we got from BushCo were lies.
I’m sure that what Bush and his people said, they really WANTED to be true, even though they were told it probably wouldn’t be.
That’s the thing about being a CON. It’s not what actually happens that matters. It’s what you believe and intend that matters.
I would expand on the post about Pape’s fingdings – 1)he contends that suicide bombing is more likely when there is a conflict between asymetrical parties – with the weaker party suicide bombing against the stronger. Suicide bombing is most effective against democratic governments where citizens can effectively make demands on their leaders.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39978
RUH ROH!
Check it out–Darth Cheney, Dark Lord of the Sith is screwing with the Intelligence reports AGAIN to justify attacking Iran.
“To hell with the fact they don’t have nukes. They might get nukes sometime in THE FUTURE mightn’t they?
“Since when do facts ever stop us from attacking people we don’t like?”
WASHINGTON, Nov 8 (IPS) – A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear programme, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.
A former CIA intelligence officer who has asked not to be identified told IPS that an official involved in the NIE process says the Iran estimate was ready to be published a year ago but has been delayed because the director of national intelligence wanted a draft reflecting a consensus on key conclusions — particularly on Iran’s nuclear programme.
Where would you place the suicide emolation by buddhist priests back during the vietnam war?? I was sort of surprised that got left out in the post above??
I don’t think it’s necessary to post links documenting specific instances of this, since there have already been so many that it is accepted as general knowledge. I stand firmly on my assertion that Western Judeo-Christian beliefs have traditionally embraced the sanctity of life, while other cultures, particularly in the middle east have, and continue to do substantially other than that
You’re incredibly dense; the u.s. has lost tens of times more troops than the islamists have lost suicide bombers, yet their mothers send them gladly, and proudly hang the flag on the wall when the boy comes home in a box.
When they do otherwise, you villify them as Cindy Sheehan is villified, as traitors.
What crap you believe.
And as killers through history, I’ll put up Judeo-Christians with anyone.
>>I would expand on the post about Pape’s fingdings – 1)he contends that suicide bombing is more likely when there is a conflict between asymetrical parties – with the weaker party suicide bombing against the stronger. Suicide bombing is most effective against democratic governments where citizens can effectively make demands on their leaders.
Posted by: Steven Davis<<_________________
Wow Steven, that certainly sounds like us.
This book by Pape is ringing a bell somewhere in the back of my mind. I don’t think I’ve ever read it, but I’ve seen excerpts from it, and think I’ve read synopses of the conclusions. In light of your comments, I amend the statement I made from suggesting that muslim countries were more prone to suicide bombings, though they certainly are not exempt. (Hillary would be proud of my ability to flip-flop, though not proud of me for owning it rather than claiming the boys are beating me up.) I do, however, retain the position that traditional Western, Judeo-Christian values hold human life as something sacred, not just special, and that that foundational value would make us less likely to to commit suicide bombings, such as we have empirically noted in Iraq and Israel. Those bombings are targeted more at civilian non-combatants than military targets. If Pate took a deliberately secular view of bombings in his research, I think it’s incomplete, though I don’t know that, since I haven’t read the book. Perhaps I’ll get a copy of it and add it to the pile I have waiting to be read.
This single aspect of my original post still points out how our cultures are colliding, and begs the question, if nobody blinks on our driving values, is it possible to avoid a crash while we play chicken.
Can we all say Door King very fast?? LOL
It is so much simplier to reduce the argument to “They hate us for our freedom”.
The Budhist monks were pascifist terrorist, the confined the killing to themselves. Kind of like Gandhi to the extreme.
Hatred for a political party is like hatred for a certain race, often people say they hate the mass but like individuals. I have worked with several diehard Democrats a few that go beyond simple Democrat to flaming liberal. When I make it know I am a register Republican they lower their eyebrows and stare at me like I have just admitted to being a child molester! But once we discuss current events and the direction this country should be taking. We may not agree always but understand each others views and find we are not that far a part.
***As for Iran, Israel and the Islamic extremists, Israel will finally get tired of waiting for the United States to do their dirty work and attack Iran. They kind of like being the only one in a fist fight that can bring a Shotgun. Israel has last report 25 nuclear weapons, even if Iran were to have one all it means is that Israel could no longer bully them and if the Israelis happen to use any of their against a Moslem nation. There would then be one who could strike back and do damage.
If you look at the history of Islamic extremism you would find they always peter out, they never truly catch on in Moslem countries and in fact that is why they went after the U.S. It is by their extreme views such as if you are not one of us you are against us. That is why they have no problem killing other Moslems, because in their view if they were true Moslems they would be with them. They themselves are not true followers of their holly book. As it plainly state that one Moslem shall not war against (kill) another Moslem. When the Mongol horde converted to Islam but continued to invade and conquer countries in the Middle East this caused some problems with fighting back for the Moslems. Al-Qaeda as they have come to be called, is actually few in numbers. Any loose association is purely in name only, Bin Laden’s greatest power come only because he will give money. This has also lead to him being defrauded more then once, the key witness in the Bombing trials was in fact on the run from Bin Laden because he stole over a hundred thousand from Bin Laden. The same witness also is the one that coined the title of “Al-Qaeda”, before it hit the news the small group that Bin Laden was a part of did not have a name. And more thought of themselves as a extension of Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Brotherhood.
Ah, there’s that box, again, Door. I’m afraid I don’t quite fit the one you’ve selected for me. Certainly, at least not on the basis of your statement. I think I might should point out two difficulties in your two point all-or-nothing logic.
First, I’m pretty sure not all moms gladly send their sons to war. Perhaps you know some who do, but I don’t think I know any that do, nor did I suggest that ALL mothers in the middle east do so. But now, here, you were reasonalby correct: of the couple of families that I am personally acquainted with who have lost sons serving in Iraq, yes, they do proudly post flags in their homes–flags given them upon the death of their sons who died nobly defending the United States. Door King, judging by the tone of your post, are you suggesting that’s offensive to you in some way?
Secondly, I’m pretty sure I’ve never posted anything about Cindy Shehane, so I certainly haven’t villified her–on here or any where else. Sorry if that disappoints…
Lastly, many leaders have prosecuted wars and murder in the name of all kinds of political and religious systems, including Christiany. I referred to core Judeo-Christian beliefs, not folk advancing their own kingdoms in the name of God. The theocracy of the Old Testament was exploded by Messiah, who said his kingdom was not of this world. People can use all kinds of things to their own ends, even, as shocking as it may seem, the misunderstanding or misrepresentation of others’ post. *gasp*
Cap’n America, I believe this is the part of Phase 2 which Roberts no doubt wanted to control, and hasn’t been released yet. It should be the more damning info. of bush’s war.
Excerpt from Wilkipedia: “As of May, 2007, the portions of the phase II report that have not yet been released are the review of public statements by U.S. government leaders prior to the war, and the assessment of the activities of Douglas Feith and the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans.”
“They hate us for our freedom”.That a misnomer, if you are telling about the terrorists it is true they blame us for the influence they see as a threat to Islam. The extremists see Democracy as man’s law in a world that should be controlled by Islamic law. But they are content to stay there in their own country, the problem is our culture does not stay in our own. That is why they attack us, they can not end our influence in their own country.
I believe I read something to the effect that if other sources were saying the same thing, the govt. officials should be excused as they had justification for their statements. You know, the ol’ leak it to someone, then quote them Administration scam.
>>the problem is our culture does not stay in our own. That is why they attack us, they can not end our influence in their own country.
Posted by: writerdog<<______________
I tend to agree, writerdog, and think this plays a significant factor in the last 30 years of attacks by Islamic jihadists.
The problem is our govt. tries to exploit other countries, and manipulate or change their system of govt. by force. The war in Iraq is not a war of cultures, even though it is fought between two very dissimilar cultures.
If you pay your bills on time Mary, you have nothing to worry about.
A good credit score can lower your insurance premiums.
A bad score can raise them.
Deadbeats who don’t pay their bills on time are more likely to make-up claims and try to collect free insurance money.
So, the premium rates for deadbeats are higher.
And if your score is too bad, the insurance company may not even issue a policy to you. They could even cancel a policy for an existing policy holder.
Claims history also has an impact. Allstate was well known for cancelling policies after a large claim is filed or after two or more smaller claims are filed in one year.
At State Farm, after so many years of good premium payment history and good claim history, they actually give you a no-cancellation guarantee.
Shop around Mary, maybe you will find a better deal somewhere else, like with State Farm.
Insurance companies can’t survive if their policy holders get paid more in claims then what they pay in premiums.
The credit score is used to weed out the deadbeats who are likely to file false claims, in order to keep the rates lower for the good policy holders.
Posted by: Your Good Neighbor | November 08, 2007 at 10:14 AM
——–
My uncle was an insurance agent for State Farm and he made a buttload and was always being sent on vacations. So was my friend who works for Allstate. I know for a fact about what you say about homeowners insurance being cancelled by Allstate, I saw it in action. Poor family had their house hit by a tornado and then by a huge hail storm not even a few months after they did repairs from the tornado. They were cancelled.
Now that being said- it’s CRAP to hold all people responsible. It should depend on YOUR insurance record alone…not on what speculation we MIGHT do because of our credit score. There are a lot of good honest people in the world who just happen to be poor, and I’m sick of people getting screwed over it. Mine isn’t too bad right now- but I’m coming out of serious credit issues because I had to stay home with my son for a few years. I don’t care if my credit is good now and I might be no worse nor better off. This is the wrong way to do it.
I do have American Family, and I will be cancelling not only my homeowners with them, but my cars as well. And I probably won’t go to State Farm either.
I had a friend, that after decades of insurance with the same co., and never having filed a claim was cancelled. Guess they thought he was over due.
Is this the thought process of independents.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF AMBIGUITY (edited for brevity)
3. ATHEISM IS A NON-PROPHET ORGANIZATION.
4. IF MAN EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS AND APES, WHY DO WE STILL HAVE MONKEYS AND APES?
6. I WENT TO A BOOKSTORE AND ASKED THE SALESWOMAN, “WHERE’S THE SELF-HELP SECTION?”SHE SAID IF SHE TOLD ME, IT WOULD DEFEAT THE PURPOSE.
8. IF A DEAF PERSON SWEARS, DOES HIS MOTHER WASH HIS HANDS WITH SOAP?
13. IF A PARSLEY FARMER IS SUED, CAN THEY GARNISH HIS WAGES?
14. WOULD A FLY WITHOUT WINGS BE CALLED A WALK?
15. WHY DO THEY LOCK GAS STATION BATHROOMS? ARE THEY AFRAID SOMEONE WILL CLEAN THEM?
22. ONE NICE THING ABOUT EGOTISTS: THEY DON’T TALK ABOUT OTHER PEOPLE.
23. DOES THE LITTLE MERMAID WEAR AN ALGEBRA?
24. DO INFANTS ENJOY INFANCY AS MUCH AS ADULTS ENJOY ADULTERY?
25. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?
3 0. WHY ARE HEMORRHOIDS CALLED “HEMORRHOIDS” INSTEAD OF “ASSTEROIDS”?
CC folks will like this one:31. WHY IS IT CALLED TOURIST SEASON IF WE CAN’T SHOOT AT THEM?
32. WHY IS THERE AN EXPIRATION DATE ON SOUR CREAM?
34. CAN AN ATHEIST GET INSURANCE AGAINST ACTS OF GOD?
Good ones Ken — But let’s add one more >>>
35. WHY ARE THERE INTERSTATE HIGHWAYS IN HAWAII??
Iraq Déjà Vu: Cheney Pressuring Intel Analysts, Stifling Dissent, Manipulating Intelligence
Gareth Porter of Inter Press Service reports that Vice President Cheney has been thwarting the release of a long-overdue National Intelligence Estimate on Iran because it doesn’t deliver the casus belli for war:
A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program, and thus make the document more supportive of U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
The current dispute over the Iran NIE bears striking resemblance to the controversies that played out over pre-war Iraq intelligence in at least two important ways:
1) Administration Stifling Dissent
NOW: According to IPS, the draft Iran NIE was reportedly completed a year ago, but the White House rejected it because it contained dissenting views. A former intelligence officer said, “They refused to come out with a version that had dissenting views in it.”
THEN: Prior to the Iraq war, the Air Force, Energy Department, and State Department all issued dissenting views on the state of Iraq’s progress towards a nuclear program. Those dissenting views later turned out to be correct, and in the process, greatly undermined the administration’s credibility. The lesson learned by the White House apparently is that this time they need to demolish dissent.
2) Administration Pressuring Analysts
NOW: Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi told IPS that “intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House.” The draft Iran NIE, for example, did not conclude that there was confirming evidence that Iran was arming the Shiite insurgents in Iraq, according to Giraldi.
THEN: Prior to the Iraq war, Cheney and his chief of staff Scooter Libby visited the CIA headquarters approximately a dozen times to engage the CIA analysts directly on the issue of Iraq’s nuclear development, “creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration’s policy objectives.”
The New Yorker’s Seymour Hersh has reported that, despite there being very little evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb, the White House is “stovepiping” intelligence and hiding information from the CIA that makes a case for war.
In February, the intelligence community released a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that reported Iran was not “a major driver of violence” inside Iraq, disputing administration claims to the contrary. Former CIA officer Giraldi says the the White House is looking for “a document that it can use as evidence for its Iran policy.” Fortunately, not all analysts are willing to “fix the facts around the policy.”
Obama in the article quoted, said what I believe, he would error on the side of pre-emption.
I believe that is what Congress authorized and Bush ordered in Iraq.Posted by: American Way | November 08, 2007 at 10:59 AM
AW, you summarized very concisely what I was trying to say earlier today.
I believe the Nuclear Proliferation issue and the method the US will use to stop Nuclear Proliferation is the most important issue for Government in America today.
Without a secure national defense, global warming, Social Security/Medicare fiscal crisis, gay marriage, pollution, education, et. al. doesn’t really matter much without a country does it?
Not an issue any politician wants to touch today, if they don’t have to. Thus, flip-flopping on the part of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards on this topic.
The Republicans are more clear on how to defend America.
Mr Atkins, if you are still around, I’m back and will try to outline this great Nuclear dilemma as concisely and simply as I can due to space and attention span limitations on this blog.
Generic Dilemma Situation:
Generic Decision – Path A or Path B
Certain outcome of Path A is $10,000 is lost.
2 Outcomes for Path B, one is better then Path A and one is worse then Path A.
Path A will lead to a loss of $0 or a loss of $50,000.
If you have to chose between a certain loss of $10,000 or an uncertain loss of $0 to $50,000, which would you choose?
You say the decision might depend on the likelihood of the two Path B outcomes – $0 or -$50,000.
Say you have a 100% chance of losing $10,000 for Path A.
For Path B, you have a 5% chance of losing $0 and a 95% chance of losing $50,000.
Which do you chose?
Path A of course, since a certain loss of $10,000 is better then a 95% chance of losing $50,000 – EVEN IF you have a 5% chance of losing $0 by chosing Path B.
The Downside Risk of loss of Path B is so great, you decide you would be better off to lose a certain amount of $10,000, then take the highly likely risk of losing $50,000.
And now, a more realistic example of the Nuclear Proliferation Dilemma:
In Pakistan Decision a Coup takeover leads to a fanatical regime gaining control of the 60 nukes in Pakistan – Path A is Pre-emptive US Action Approach, and Path B is a Reactive Assured Response Approach.
Certain outcome of Path A (Pre-emption) is that American military strikes and a targeted invasion takes out most or all of the 60 nukes in Pakistan. The cost is 10,000 US lives and 50,000 Pakistani civilian and Pakistani fanatics lives, and $200 billion.
A nuclear attack on the US is avoided.
There are 2 outcomes for Path B (Assured Response), one is better then Path A and one is worse then Path A.
Path B (1) is the US does nothing, but makes it clear that any attack on the US will result in an appropriate response. The fanatics in Pakistan chose not to or are incapable of delivering the nuke to the US, and America is safe.
Path B (2) is the US does nothing, but makes it clear that any attack on the US will result in an appropriate response. The fanatics in Pakistan find a way to deliver a nuke and blow-up New York city causing 10 million American deaths, and costing $100 Trillion in clean-up and retaliatory costs. 20 million Pakistani die in the American response which is to nuke Pakistan.
What’s the likelihood of outcome (1) for path B? Say it’s 95%.
Then outcome (2) for path B has a 5% chance of occurring. That is, a 5% chance that 10 million Americans and 20 million Pakistani will die and $100 Trillion will be spent to mop up the mess.
Does America sit back and do nothing even if there is just a 5% chance of this horrible scenario?
Plug in any percentage you like for B (1) and B (2), then YOU decide what America should do.
And Amway was right earlier today when he said that Bush and Congress authorized Path A for Iraq, KNOWING the downside risk of path B (2). And the Dems now take political advantage of that decision WITHOUT offering any viable options of their own.
Bush’s 2000 recount lawyer set to blast Bush in speech.
Barry Richard, the lawyer who “achieved fame for his successful representation of George Bush in the Bush v. Gore recount suits, is set to give a speech blasting the Bush administration Saturday night” at the National Association of Former U.S. Attorneys’ (NAFUSA) annual conference. There will also be a panel discussion featuring two of the ousted U.S. attorneys. The National Law Journal reports:
“I’m sure people will see my name on the program and expect I will be defending the administration,” said Richard, a Tallahassee, Fla., lawyer.
“But I’m a constitutional lawyer. I am concerned with the Bush administration’s assault on American liberties … how the administration deals with habeas corpus and the administration’s posture on electronic surveillance. This administration has gone farther than any other.”
Max,
Thanks for the time you took to make that fairly plain for most of us.
Do you rate the horses, BTW? ;-)
2 Approaches To Defend America
Mutual Assured Destruction has worked for 60 years to deter countries like the Soviet Union (now Russia), and China from attacking the US with nukes.
Mutual Assured Destruction only works as a deterrent when the potential enemy knows they will be destroyed by a retaliatory strike, and they value life and do not want to be destroyed.
One defense approach for America, MAD, will continue to work against countries such as Russia and China as they know we will strike back.
MAD may not work for 3rd world nations controlled by insane dictators or terrorist groups who do not value life so much and are not afraid of a retaliatory strike. Furthermore, they believe they might anonymously insert a nuclear weapon into the US through weak border defenses (by truck and/or boat) and be able to detonate a nuclear bomb without the US knowing for sure where it came from. Thus, the 3rd world dictator or terrorist group has some doubt that the US would know to retaliate against them and be able to find them.
A second defense is needed for 3rd world nations and terrorist groups that might gain control over nuclear weapons. While some value can be placed on anti ballistic missile systems (soon to be based in Eastern Europe) the US needs a more certain defense approach for these groups. Something Beyond Mad. (Pun intended)
The second approach then is Pre-emption. Not a pretty option. We see this in action now in Iraq. (I know, no nukes found there even though the entire world thought there were WMD’s) The alternative though, is far worse. And this worse alternative is what everyone in America and the World needs to understand.
And it’s hard to prove the effectiveness of pre-emption if an attack on America is PREVENTED. It’s not hard at all though, to prove the failure of an Assured Response approach if America IS attacked.
Not an easy decision to make either way. And that’s why we need a decisive President, someone who has a backbone, convictions, and does not change his position on the issues based on political polls and wind direction.
And maybe, just maybe after 2 or 3 pre-emptive actions are taken, we can deter any 3rd world nation or terrorist group from attempting such an approach in the future.
Hello in there Max
Dude? You should get out more.
You are starting to believe your own paranoid delusions.
My son is 13. I’d just as soon lunatics like you not get him killed because you spend every waking hour contemplating disastrous and unlikely scenarios.
Seriously. Seek help.
2 Approaches To Defend America
Mutual Assured Destruction has worked for 60 years to deter countries like the Soviet Union (now Russia), and China from attacking the US with nukes.
Mutual Assured Destruction only works as a deterrent when the potential enemy knows they will be destroyed by a retaliatory strike, and they value life and do not want to be destroyed.
One defense approach for America, MAD, will continue to work against countries such as Russia and China as they know we will strike back.
MAD may not work for 3rd world nations controlled by insane dictators or terrorist groups who do not value life so much and are not afraid of a retaliatory strike. Furthermore, they believe they might anonymously insert a nuclear weapon into the US through weak border defenses (by truck and/or boat) and be able to detonate a nuclear bomb without the US knowing for sure where it came from. Thus, the 3rd world dictator or terrorist group has some doubt that the US would know to retaliate against them and be able to find them.
A second defense is needed for 3rd world nations and terrorist groups that might gain control over nuclear weapons. While some value can be placed on anti ballistic missile systems (soon to be based in Eastern Europe) the US needs a more certain defense approach for these groups. Something Beyond Mad. (Pun intended)
The second approach then is Pre-emption. Not a pretty option. We see this in action now in Iraq. (I know, no nukes found there even though the entire world thought there were WMD’s) The alternative though, is far worse. And this worse alternative is what everyone in America and the World needs to understand.
And it’s hard to prove the effectiveness of pre-emption if an attack on America is PREVENTED. It’s not hard at all though, to prove the failure of an Assured Response approach if America IS attacked.
Not an easy decision to make either way. And that’s why we need a decisive President, someone who has a backbone, convictions, and does not change his position on the issues based on political polls and wind direction.
And maybe, just maybe after 2 or 3 pre-emptive actions are taken, we can deter any 3rd world nation or terrorist group from attempting such an approach in the future.
Nah, Mr Atkins, I don’t play the horses. Too risky!
Not an easy topic I attempted I know. Difficult for most to understand.
But even the likes of JR would understand a failure in America’s defenses if New York City blew up tomorrow.
Not easy for some to see the down side of what might happen. Even if there is just a small chance 10 million people could die, the downside risk is too high to ignore.
400,000 American’s died in WWII defending America from what MIGHT have happened if Germany and Japan were not defeated.
Germany and Japan might have attacked and invaded the mainland US. Or they might not have.
The downside risk of a chance that 150 million Americans would be killed or captured by Japanese or Germans was thought, at the time, to be worth the sacrifice of 400,000 Americans.
Ya don’t have to attack the whole world Max.
A third world nuke is not exactly state of the art stuff like we have perfected over the last 60 years.
They are likely big, clunky, not well tested, etc.
You can address this with better security. The border and the Coast guard and full inspection at all ports shipping to the US would be plenty effective.
JR,
Contributing nothing but worthless ad hominems again, I see. I’ve noticed you’ve referred to your son a time or two. Do you speak to him in hateful ad hominems, also? If you do, is that torture, or just abuse? Do you have some sort of psychotic disorder so that your hatefulness finds expression in one minute, but you can instantly flip some sort imagined internal switch and be encouraging to someone else?
Why do you feel all right about showing us this side of yourself? Does it have to do with the fact that this is anonymous blog, so you feel somehow empowered to bully others, or is it simply that those who actually have “real” relationships with you won’t put up with it, and you feel this is your only outlet?
Max?
To “blow up New York city” or “kill 10 million people”, your terrorists would need a state of the art HYDROGEN bomb. Real sophisticated stuff.
Oh go castigate homosexual people David.
Max is passionate. I like him even. He is just over thinking this.
I agree PMom, I have good credit…my premiums won’t be a problem..but I think it’s totally unfair that insurance premiums are based on a credit score. Things happen…medical catastrophies, lost jobs, etc. People shouldn’t be punished because life happens…not everyone with poor credit is a deadbeat…some have just had unfortunate circumstances beyond their control. The only reason for home insurers to do this is to increase their bottom line, that’s what it’s really all about.
Ah, content from JR. Good job.
Right now in the Senate there is a very good debate over the confirmation of the A.G. Talk about bipartisanship! The Republicans are granting time to Democrats who are in favor of Judge Mukssey!All are stating clearly, without a doubt that water boarding is torture. That there is already laws on the books and agreements that ban it. The only real discussing is to not approve of Mukssey would mean that Bush will appoint someone even worst. The only hang up is the Judge’s not answering the question of the legality of water boarding. Best debate I have seen since getting cable!
We don’t have a position for blog high hat David. Thanks for applying anyway.
JR,
Thanks for letting me know. I’m assuming, then, there isn’t one for Gutter Person either. I won’t compete for the one if you won’t compete for the other.
Oh and Max?
My position on the southern border seemed to surprise you.
It isn’t new you know.
If you want to worry, worry about that. It is a FAR greater threat to our way of life and that includes your third world imported nuke. They could ship it to Mexico and roll it right into any city in America.
I’d be really curious, what other options people can think of to decrease the likelihood of an attack on America in an increasingly dangerous world.
JR says seal the borders. Ok, then just let the rest of the world go to heck and hope that nothing ever crosses our Maginot line at the border?
IF the complete responsibility was on YOUR shoulders, like it is the President of the United States, what would YOU do?
Remember, if ANY attacks on America occurs, it WILL BE YOUR FAULT!
It’s easy to criticize what the President is doing today, and many do. It’s not so easy to develop alternative solutions.
Most are simply critics, and offer no better solutions.
A coalition of watchdog organizations will today launch Governmentdocs.org, the first online database of government documents that can be browsed, searched, and reviewed. The goal is to “promote greater transparency into the government’s inner workings.”
http://governmentdocs.org/
I’m assuming, then, there isn’t one for Gutter Person either.
Well we did have a volunteer! It took us a LONG time to discourage him.
Really Max, it’s ok to be concerned. Just be concerned in a productive direction.
Agree 100% with your 9:36 post JR.
It’s not the complete solution though, it is a good step to take.
JR,
Thanks for letting me know. I’m assuming, then, there isn’t one for Gutter Person either. I won’t compete for the one if you won’t compete for the other.
Sigh….
Max?
Terrorists are not going to be getting ICBM’s, Ballistic missile submarines, or intercontinental bombers. Even if they did, it would be easy to proactively address.
Research the Manhattan project. Yeah I know there’s that old stuff about loose Russian suitcase bombs.
But if it were true? Shouldn’t we have seen it by now?
Nukes are complex to make small and portable Max.
Guard against boxcars, cargo containers, and 18 wheelers and you pretty much address a second rate third world nuke.
JR,
You may be shocked that we did find a point of agreement. I completely agree that the border needs to be immediately closed and sealed with a wall, Minute Men, or whatever is necessary. As a border state native, I know how remarkably easy it would be to get a dirty nuke or some other weapon across the border. I think Houston is probably a much easier target than NYC, and the ease with which someone could get from Del Rio to downtown Houston, or run a small personal fishing boat up the ship channel… I don’t even want to think about it.
Sorry ’bout the double post… I hit the refresh button at the wrong time.
To fight wars of agression in the name of being proactive and at the same time have a wide open border. It’s crazy. There’s no precedent in history for it.
It makes the whole “fight them over there” bit nothing more than a sad cruel joke.
60 nukes are estimated to be in Pakistan today.
Say 3 are taken by terrorists.
1 each is placed into 3 fishing boats, which routinely fish the outer banks of the US.
They enter some small podunk port in Maine, carrying their “fish”.
3 semi-trucks pull up and take the small 100 kiloton nukes to NYC.
One parks on Manhatten, one in Brooklyn, and one in the Bronx. They all go off at once and a nice southerly breeze spreads fallout across the entire city.
5 million killed < 24 hours, 5 million more die in the next 30 days.
I agree, the ICBM, SLBM, ALCM, bomber or Cruise Missile is not the most likely delivery method.
A boat and a truck would do the job.
And THAT is what scares the heck out of me.
Can we/Should we take the Reactive approach with Pakistan if extremists gain control there? Iran could be next, but the immediate concern TODAY is Pakistan.
Max?
I showed you some of what I used to write. Remember?
I could show you more.
This is why I have a weakness for you, your passion.
But my gosh Max! Do you sit around and dream this stuff up? It isn’t healthy and it doesn’t much help.
THINK!
Ok say Pakistan falls into chaos. We don’t have to invade or bomb it. Geez India would LOVE that.
Max? We have sattelites that if you look up and smile they can see the fillings in your teeth.
Pakistan falls we just control what goes out of Pakistan. YOU know, like bush DIDN’T do with Iraq?
No trucks, no trains, no planes out. I confess I do not know if Pakistan has access to the sea. If it does, no boats or ships out.
See?
1 each is placed into 3 fishing boats, which routinely fish the outer banks of the US.
See this is what I mean Max.
I confess I don’t know. Are there Pakistani fishing boats fishing the US outer banks? I’m thinking no. Heck we can’t even get fresh US caught fish IN the US.
Hope you are right about US military capabilities to track all nukes JR.
On another note, David and GMC somewhere both said something to the effect that we all have more common beliefs then we have differences.
A few months ago (in one of my dreaming moments JR) I dreamt up a list of 12 Core or Common beliefs, and got shot down like the Red Barron was after me.
I’ll see if I can find this and repost, just for fun.
It might be a more positive way to end the night.
I would love to see it, Max. =)
Ok, here’s the repost. I’m turning in. One more day to work before I go hunting again!
Anyone want to have some fun?
Just for shitsandgiggles, if nuthin else.
We all attack each other from time to time, most of us actually must enjoy some of that conflict, and we don’t hate each other (Really I don’t think we do, and there are some very intelligent and informative posters here!) though we often, I mean almost always disagree. That tension is why we are here after all or we would simply go to another website where everyone shares the exact same opinion.
I have a proposal. A modest proposal, and here’s what I propose:
1. I propose that all Americans have a set of Common Beliefs or Common Goals if you will, things we can all actually agree on, believe it or not. While there are many goals we do not share, there is a Core Set of Common Beliefs or Common Goals we do share. And those Common Goals are some of the most important goals each of us has in our own lives.
2. Most of our disagreements in America are not about WHAT our Common Goals are, but on HOW we achieve those goals.
So first things first. One step at a time. Can we, do you think it might be possible, for us to agree on a common set of goals? IF we can do that, then maybe we could tackle the next step, which is HOW to achieve those goals.
Why do I care, and why do I think anyone on this blog might care? Because I think we are all united in a common cause of caring about the future of this country, about the future of ourselves, and about the future of our kids or there would be no point in posting all this stuff that we post everyday. I think most of the conflict we have dividing America is not so much on the End goal, as in the How to achieve the End goal.
So to start, I’ll modestly (yeah right Max is modest, oh and humble too) propose a set of Common Goals. Some may propose other goals or propose changes to my initial list, and that’s what I would expect. So here goes, 12 Common Goals to start with:
1. Freedom, we all agree that people should be free. There are no excessive laws and controls on our lives, for every law passed restricts our freedom to some extent.
2. We agree that the rule of Law founded in the Constitution of the US is the foundation for all other laws and controls over our lives.
3. A certain amount of Government is necessary to provide order in our society, to maintain the rule of Law, and to perform a basic role in ensuring the rights of people are protected.
4. We all believe that we should pay our own way in life, that no one should pay for us, that we need to pay our fair share to survive on this planet Earth. There are a few who will require support from others to survive and no one wishes anyone to starve to death, go homeless, due to certain incapacities someone may have.
5. We all desire to own our own homes, land, food, clothing, and other property necessary for life.
6. We all desire to have a good job paying a wage commensurate with our effort and value added and job security. We believe we have a marketable skill to provide value to society.
7. We desire a good education for our children.
8. We desire affordable and available healthcare.
9. We want a clean environment as pollution free as possible.
10. We recognize that our economy requires energy and that we must in the long-term, find an economical, environmentally-friendly, and affordable supply of energy.
11. We recognize there is a finite supply of resources, Earth resources, Human resources, Economic resources, and that we must necessarily make choices and balance our resources in order to meet our needs. And not all of our wants will be satisfied. (Wants and Needs being clearly distinguished). A difficult task then is in allocating scarce resources.
12. The US is a world power with certain responsibility to as JFK said, be a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. While we cannot be the policemen of the world, we can and should help other nations whenever we can.
IF we can agree on 12 Common Goals, maybe that’s a starting point for those who want to have a constructive discussion. OR, we can all just post our 2 bits, going back and forth, attacking each other personally, having some fun with that and etc….
Well it wasn’t months Max because I saw it and have been back only 5 weeks or so.
You thought I was a construct, remember?
I didn’t do all this to demean you or make you look foolish.
I sense a good heart. Just think instead of fearing so much.
And tracking nukes? Well how about we do THAT instead of monitoring our own people?
And remember Max. A lot of problems we have are one way another self made.
bush relaxed sanctions against Pakistan over their nukes so we could get bin Laden. Afghanistan is on Pakistans shoulder but is being neglected for Iraq.
I WISH I didn’t believe it was all by some bad and intentional design.
See ya again Max.
Forget about Sandy Berger and a few documents, this makes him look like an amateur: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071108/us_nm/usa_reagan_crime_dc
Bad news: Musharaff has put Benazir Bhutto under house arrest.
http://www.nytimes.com
This could get really, really ugly–as if it weren’t ugly enough already.
Turning in to go to bed. Not seeing where you guys have a plan to turn the world around.
Fear is not the answer. The absence of fear is not the answer.
Start over, guys and gals.
An un-American view of the war. Here’s what they’re saying:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7080000/newsid_7086200/7086213.stm?bw=bb&mp=wm&asb=1&news=1&ms3=54
“as JFK said, be a beacon of freedom for the rest of the world.”================
There ya go Max — a BEACON of freedom for the rest of the world… not an occupying force exporting our version of freedom to unwilling nations… A BEACON shines the light up and out…. it doesnt invade…. A BEACON is visible for ALL to see, and find their way towards its light.
Yes, Max, let us go back to being that BEACON to the rest of the world… a time when the world respected us; looked up to us; looked to us for help….
A BEACON of freedom… what a magnificent idea!!
“Man-made global warming is a hoax, anyway, —”
Posted by: Econ101 | November 08, 2007 at 02:51 PM
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/11/how-to-stop-chi.html#comment-89257710
econ101’s proof(sic) that it’s a “hoax” is John Coleman.
‘Forget science, we got ourselves a conspiracy theorist!’http://www.desmogblog.com/forget-science-we-got-ourselves-a-conspiracy-theorist
“Forget any real science, when it comes to right-wing bloggers apparently all it takes to disprove an entire body of scientific evidence is the conspiracy theories of a retired weatherman.”
Much more at link. Thank you econ101, I’m ROFLMAO!
Max,
I’m glad you reposted those 12 Common Goals. If it doesn’t get good responses, do it earlier in the day. Late night gets, um, goofy around here. ;)