Carter had to deal with the lingering effects of the first opec oil embargo, and the immediate effect of the second oil shock. You think maybe tripling energy costs might have had an effect on the economy, dumbass? Carter was a decent guy. He was actually a strong president. Quiz: did he raise or lower the military budget? Quiz: did Reagan's increase in the military budget buy any useful stuff? Answer 1: raised. Answer 2: not really. The hugely expensive 600 ship navy was immediately trimmed, with unnecessary ships being mothballed. THey got built, delivering pork, but that's about it. Star Wars is still a pipe dream. He built the B1 bomber, which was an interim solution (of dubious effectiveness even in the plan) until the stealth bomber became available. It became operational AFTER the stealth...and don't even get started on the hammers and toilet seats.
After seeing the Republican shenannigans in Florida, and the complete lack of ethics and honor in Iranamuck, I find the "October Surprise" thesis plausible.
Reagan? Glad he's dead. Too bad for his family it wasn't a stroke and fairly quick, but that fake has a lot of innocent blood on his hands.
Let us not forget - UT Law rejected W
on
Cheating Made Easy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That may be why he pushed a law through that took management of the UT endowment from a public, transparent process (that did a fine job) and turned it over to a secret, private company (surprisingly, a major contributor to W's political career!) that churned and burned like a low grade spamming boiler room operation.
I was just going randomly. I was congratulating myself on knowing that Wales was on the western side of England, and that it's not part of England, but is part of U.K. Not a huge accomplishment, I grant.
What's included in the definition of Britain?
Also - is it true the English plundered all the vowels in Wales?
Weirdly, wildly unbalanced. In the 7th year of the Clinton years, they were giving credit for anything good to Bush the Elder, or Reagan. "It takes time for policies to have an effect!" Then with the slightest bubble in employement numbers - more due to people's benefits running out than actually getting jobs: "W == teh l337!"
They even publish stuff from that game show celebrity-equivalent Bill Bennett (Famous because...he's famous. Not for his brains, or insight, or achievements. Drug czar? We sure won that one under his watch! Education czar? Schools were sure shitty...)
It's really as bad as the "Young Spartacus", just in the opposite side of the spectrum.
This is a good trick for you females. (There ARE some on/., dammit!) A very attractive, accomplished, intelligent woman played a prank on me. As a party game, she had me close my eyes and trace the outline of "the ideal woman". I figured the game was to get the guy to lose track and laugh at the deformed outline. Something along the lines of "Her breasts are 2 feet above her neck!"
So I concentraited very hard.
"Ok, show where her eyes are." "Show where her nose is." "Show where her hair comes down to." "Show where her breasts are and their approximate size" "Show where her navel is." "Show where her waist is." "Show where her hips are."
I was focussing really hard as the bits got closer together, sure I was creating a monster.
"Show where her vagina is." I put my finger out and felt a warm, moist cavity.
I fell over laughing - she'd knelt and put her mouth on my finger. I was pretty surprised. And a bit embarrassed.
\Can"on\, n. [OE. canon, canoun, AS. canon rule (cf. F. canon, LL. canon, and, for sense 7, F. chanoine, LL. canonicus), fr. L. canon a measuring line, rule, model, fr. Gr. ? rule, rod, fr. ?, ?, red. See Cane, and cf. Canonical.] 1. A law or rule.
Yes, a Texas Governor tends to sign bills into law that apply to Texas. But only a complete moron would miss the apparent inconsistency of G.W. Bush fighting a voting standard in Florida that he approved in Texas. This was my point and you are a fuckwit to miss it. Is this point spelled out clearly enough? If not, get a cranial enema and read it again.
I am denying that a majority of people in California voted to oust Gray Davis. A minority of those who voted in that election voted for the Gropinator, and due to the provisions of the recall, he's in.
And paid signature gathering as a form of free speech? You can't be serious. That's probably the least apt way to discribe it. Are you denying that a wealthy partisan bought an election? He paid, and the election happened. Is there not a disproportionate advantage to be had by those who can cause elections on topics of their choosing? I'll make it easy: there is. To make it easier: would you want an election to determine whether you got to stay alive? Just putting the question on the ballot is a real disadvantage to you, and an advantage for everyone else...
Revisionist history. Chickenhawks like Bush and Quayle and the other members of the "Millionare Boys Club" flocked to the National Guard because at the time it was considered much safer than taking a chance on the draft. This is indisputable - quit disputing it. And there is no disputing the war record Kerry had. You get right-wing wingnuts who didn't serve with him, and a commander changing his story to suit his politics. It is really weird that Republicans think they can compare the service records - "Kerry didn't get wounded enough! While in contrast, W. may actually have showed up for Guard duty! My mannnnnn!" Amazing.
Here are a few of the "mere" rule interpretations the Supremes ratified: overseas, primarily military ballots will be counted even if late, but ONLY if mailed to Republican-leaning counties - James Baker fought bitterly to deny service men and women the same right to vote late if it appeared they were Democrats; ballot counting standards SIGNED INTO LAW in Texas by G.W. Bush will not be employed because it is inconvenient. You have to face it: only partisan hacks had any respect for the two decisions that decided the election. The first one was decided on the basis that it would "harm G.W. Bush" ! The second recognizes itself as purely political and for the first time in Supreme Court history contains a clause that states, in effect, that this is such terrible law that it is not to be relied on for any kind of precedent.
"Refer to my point of the people being too stupid to exercise the power that they have. That's not the same as them not having the power. There's a fundamental difference between a plutocracy and a democracy but it sounds like you're too stupid to comprehend it."
You appear to be too stupid to understand that money has an effect on elections and the people who win those elections. That is power. Why are you denying it? Two reasons suggest themselves: 1) you are a fuckwit and 2) you favor the results.
Paid signature gatherers are not exactly what the recall provision had in mind. That's the mechanism by which the recall was bought, by a Republican millionaire's private efforts. I grant that it was run according to the letter of the state constitution. It is still fundamentally undemocratic.
And your defense of G.W.'s Guard service - when he bothered to show up - is deeply, deeply pathetic. It has to be among the dumbest things you've ever read. Dangerous missions? Defending Texas against Oklahoma? You should be embarassed.
"Dick C. and George W. Bush were elected by the people."
The people who are the 5 Republican Supremes.
">No longer will I assume that George was skipping National Guard duty in Texas rather than slogging through the jungles of Vietnam because of his family connections. It was probably just the luck of the draw.
George was elected by the people."
Yeah, but his National Guard service was dictated by powerful family connections that allowed him to jump to the head of the line for available positions, despite getting the lowest passing score on the aptitude test. He took a place of safety that belonged to someone else. Someone else went to Vietnam in his place.
"Gray Davis was recalled in a vote cast by the people."
The recall was purchased by a Republican. How many do-overs should the right get? If we were to "recall" the Gropinator, and if that failed, do it again, and again, and again until it stuck, would you be just as happy?
Do you really believe that special interest money has no effect on elections? That lobbying has no effect on politicians? That the electorate tracks the actions of politicians with 100% accuracy? If so, you are a fool. Or else, you should earn a commission on all you save lobbying firms by telling them to stop.
The law prohibiting us from sleeping under a bridge applies equally to the rich and the poor. Does it have the same impact on both? There are two kinds of votes - the ones in the ballot box and the kind that go with $$$.
"We don't have the metrics" when asked whether we were winning - and that was limited to just Iraq. "We don't know the score - we don't even know how to keep score" is not a comforting thing to hear from the nitwit in charge.
I think the answer has to be assessed region by region, with a subjective guesstimate at each point. Are extremist clerics gaining or losing support in city/province/country x,y,z? You can't count the lone gun nuts in any society, but you can probably take a population's temperature to see if the nuts have attained a critical mass. At bottom, I think starting a war of attrition is stupid - we lose those. It should be a hearts-and-minds thing; these we sometimes win. Not often, because we turn them into wars of attrition instead. Sometimes the hearts can't be won, but I think it could have been done in Iraq. Too late - much too late - now.
Indonesian terrorists hit Bali because Australia participated in the coalition of the window-dressing. Spain got hit for the same reason. I think the terrorist cells responsible may have remained debating societies without the invasion of Iraq.
There are some strategies that seem plausible to me, but invading a country unrelated to the 9/11 attacks isn't one of them.
This is weird - #2 as written had a formula actual/potential terrorists > 1 (LESS than one)
I do not believe that all the people who are potential terrorists actually are.
I should also have addressed the proportion of muslim extremists to the total population of Muslims. I don't know what that proportion is, but I believe it is small.
If you think there are fewer terrorists targetting the domestic U.S., I have to conclude one of us is deranged. Do determine which it is, we can ask a few questions:
1) is there an upper bound to the number of Islamic extremists? I conclude, yes. The human population is probably an upper bound. It may be reasonable to reduce the upper bound to the population of current muslims. This lower figure is not less than 1 billion. This ignores the effect of conversions such as John Walker underwent. Or we can consider them "current" muslims. http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa 120298.htm
2) is the proportion of potential vs. actual Islamic extremist terrorists 1 ? I conclude yes.
3) do the actions of the U.S. (occupying a predominantly Islamic country, killing thousands of non-combantants in the process (even granting that the U.S. military is using unprecedented restraint), torturing and sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners) affect the proportion in #2? I conclude yes, and that its effect is to increase the proportion of actual to potential terrorists.
4) The nub of the issue: does the effect of #3 completely overwhelm the effect of killing terrorists on a retail scale in Iraq? Remember - that #3 is applied to an upper limit of one billion. A tiny, tiny shift in attitude across that population is going to generate a huge difference in the number of people prepared to attack US interests. I conclude that the answer is yes, the effect of increased hostility of one billion people on the numbers of actual terrorists is likely to dwarf the effect of attrition on Islamic extremists due to combat in Iraq.
5) What proportion of Iraqi fighters killed represent terrorists who would otherwise have been engaged in attacks on U.S. soil? I conclude this is tiny. Most of the resistance is now Iraqi shiites, fighting for a previously reviled cleric that the US has successfully turned into a hero.
Think about it: you are a pissed-off religious fundamentalist who hates the U.S. Do you go to Iraq to fight it where it's strongest? Only if you smell blood and want to get in on what looks like an inevitable humiliation for the U.S. Otherwise, you continue to go after soft, civilian targets. It's not like these guys targetted Ft. Bragg before we invaded Iraq. On the contrary, they went after civilian targets even when there were military targets available.
To the extent we are making the terrorists fight us there instead of here, I think we're only finding the guys who couldn't get here. There may be more of them going to Iraq because they can afford the short commute. These would have stewed in whatever hellhole they found themselves in before we invaded.
A wise dude said of the conflict: "It's not whether we can keep winning battles: we can. The problem is to stop having to fight battles." And they can keep us fighting battles as long as someone is pissed off about a dead relative and has access to an AK-47. This describes 70%+ of the population.
And you have to admit, "If we can properly subdue Iraq and Afghanistan, then we will have gone a long way towards sorting out the Middle East" is a massive hand-wave. The Bush team had absolutely no plan. And worse, they disregarded the plans others made. Bunch of egomaniacle armchair warriors and fuck-ups. These weren't the grownups we were promised.
Let's see - the "killer apps" for home computer use:
web and email. MS both had dick to do with the development of either. The heritage of Linux is much more closely tied.
Instant messaging. IRC was a command-line Unix phenomenon before AOL took over.
Word processing - MS Word was a(n inferior) clone until the advent of Windows. In any event, they didn't pioneer anything.
spreadsheet - they invented this, gotta admit. (*cough* Visicalc *cough*)
GUI operating system - nope.
Network operating systems - oh, wait. Nah, they haven't contributed jack shit here, either.
Directory based network management - nope. AD is a cheap ripoff of NDS, which is itself an evolution of Banyon Vines, which was the result of some deep thinking by standards bodies.
What the hell have they created besides virus vectors? I can't think of a single thing they pioneered in software. Business practices and licensing terms, sure. But actual inventions? Significant departures? I come up empty.
The history of humankind is the triumph of the unworthy (and perhaps its progress in spite of that triumph).
"Tell us what Linux does that we can't do. Don't tell us you're deploying Linux just because you can."
Linux gives the BSA/SPA the finger. Linux immunizes us from external gestapo-style license audits/raids. Linux frees us from total dead-weight, lost-effort, pure-cost license tracking.
How many businesses buy licenses for pc's that came with them? More than a few. It takes less time to just cut a PO covering the number of seats than to collect all the little printed EULAs (which turn out to be useless in an audit anyway!).
Plus - the terms of the MS licenses have gotten absolutely draconian and, to me, unacceptable. They sum up as "All your base..."
I don't care if Windows could match the security and features of Linux, much less the value proposition - the license provisions are a non-starter.
Bush is a huge flipper. Sure, he sticks to (bad) decisions like glue, but when there's a vote to pick up by shredding a core Republican principle, he'll do it in a heartbeat.
He opposed the Dept. of Homeland Security. Big government, anti-freedom. Oh, polls were in favor. Cool. He's down with it now. Especially as something to bludgeon Dems with. (Who were for it, almost unanimously, and who were among the folks who originated the idea.)
Agricultural subsidies - statist and terrible economics. What - my base in the Red States is addicted to them? Sure!
Free Trade? Sure, unless tariffs on steel might sway West Virginia.
UN involvement in Iraq - "don't need 'em" until we do. Both dumb and a flip flop.
The stem cell position is as agonizingly nuanced and weaselly as anything a Democrat pres or presidential candidate has articulated in the last 30 years.
Bush has almost no principles. Those he has are wrong.
I don't believe that humans can transmit the word of God perfectly, any more than they can do anything else perfectly. Both old and new testaments were assembled in a process startlingly similar to that used to create modern day Mission Statements - and we know how unholy those are. So a literal interpretation of any text is, for me, a non-starter. I don't actually think it's logically possible, leaving aside various contradictions in the text. Words have such flexibility, ideas such nuance, that a "literal" interpretation is inherently "that which accords with what I think anyway" much of the time. It's like the flap about "activist" judges: a strict constructionist is one that supports a strong executive in the years 1980-1992, and 2000-2004. It has no other, operative meaning. So a fundamentalist relying on a "literal" basis in the text is actually being naive or disingenuous.
I'll grant that it's pedantic to dispute the literal meaning of "love your God", but there's a lot of doctrine coming out of a lot of people's mouths, and I'm sure they're not prophets. So what are they doing telling me what's on God's mind? Urge me to seek to know that mind, sure. Presume to speak on God's behalf? The recent exhortation of the U.S. VP to Sen. Lahey come to mind.
Pat Robertson is a hate mongering slaver
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1
When he agreed with Falwell that 9/11 was the fault of the targets of his bigotry, that was hate-mongering. Why does he preach against homosexuality while giving Skippers and Long John Silvers - both notorious purveyors of shellfish - a pass? God hates shrimp!
I'm not sure its fair to equate the Aryan Nations and the 700 Club, but it is fair to denounce the 700 Club for its own sins.
By the way, Robertson supported Charles Taylor in Liberia, one of history's Bad Guys. Jesus wouldn't weep, he'd puke.
many more mistakes than that
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
They cover a wide area:
math: Claiming X - Y (where both X and Y are > 0) = X in a televised debate. "Fuzzy math! Fuzzy math!" The topic was privatizing social security. Gore said, correctly, that diverting payments that go to current retirees to private accounts leaves a shortfall.
biology: doesn't believe in principle of evolution
statecraft: squandered goodwill after 9/11: went from state much sympathized to pariah state much feared.
statecraft 2: got in a land war in asia. They'll trade 2-10 for every one until we're done. We'll win every battle until we quit.
statecraft 3: didn't finish potentially winnable war in asia because of elective war in iraq.
governance: did not prevent torture from being used on those whose hearts and minds we're trying to win.
governance 2: did not anticipate any problems in Iraq. Every expert did. Went in cheap and sloppy.
character: lacks the humility and curiosity necessary to avoid the above mistakes. Leads to worse. For example, should have known that unsupervised, untrained 18 year olds will abuse authority. Or should have hired folks who knew that. Instead, encouraged abuse.
at a certain point, being an optimist equates to being a dumbass. We're long past that point with W.
inflationary 1970's was due to oil shocks
on
Bobby Fischer Found
·
· Score: 1
when the cost of a large component of the economy (energy) quadruples, inflation results.
The deficit spending related to Great Society programs + Vietnam War were quite small compared to the Reagan deficits. The Reagan deficits weren't hugely inflationary. They didn't come at a time of full employment, which would affect the degree of inflationary pressure, but the example/comparison is useful.
Government spending is a piece of the economy. Some studies believe it is less effective a stimulous than consumer spending. I haven't reviewed them, but I'm willing to believe that.
Oh, and Fisher was a genius! I saw this movie where they were comparing a kid to him! (now we're back on topic...)
Poor people pay more tax as a proportion of income than the rich do.
Payroll and sales tax and state/local taxes more than make up the difference.
http://www.ctj.org/html/whopays.htm
You pay $33k/year in *payroll* tax? Not income tax? I'm not familiar with your finances - could you clarify or confirm? There could certainly be a pariah industry singled out by the tax code for the reverse cashmir producer treatment, but it sounds odd.
Slashdot Mirror
Carter had to deal with the lingering effects of the first opec oil embargo, and the immediate effect of the second oil shock. You think maybe tripling energy costs might have had an effect on the economy, dumbass? Carter was a decent guy. He was actually a strong president. Quiz: did he raise or lower the military budget? Quiz: did Reagan's increase in the military budget buy any useful stuff? Answer 1: raised. Answer 2: not really. The hugely expensive 600 ship navy was immediately trimmed, with unnecessary ships being mothballed. THey got built, delivering pork, but that's about it. Star Wars is still a pipe dream. He built the B1 bomber, which was an interim solution (of dubious effectiveness even in the plan) until the stealth bomber became available. It became operational AFTER the stealth...and don't even get started on the hammers and toilet seats.
After seeing the Republican shenannigans in Florida, and the complete lack of ethics and honor in Iranamuck, I find the "October Surprise" thesis plausible.
Reagan? Glad he's dead. Too bad for his family it wasn't a stroke and fairly quick, but that fake has a lot of innocent blood on his hands.
That may be why he pushed a law through that took management of the UT endowment from a public, transparent process (that did a fine job) and turned it over to a secret, private company (surprisingly, a major contributor to W's political career!) that churned and burned like a low grade spamming boiler room operation.
I was just going randomly. I was congratulating myself on knowing that Wales was on the western side of England, and that it's not part of England, but is part of U.K. Not a huge accomplishment, I grant.
What's included in the definition of Britain?
Also - is it true the English plundered all the vowels in Wales?
Weirdly, wildly unbalanced. In the 7th year of the Clinton years, they were giving credit for anything good to Bush the Elder, or Reagan. "It takes time for policies to have an effect!" Then with the slightest bubble in employement numbers - more due to people's benefits running out than actually getting jobs: "W == teh l337!"
They even publish stuff from that game show celebrity-equivalent Bill Bennett (Famous because...he's famous. Not for his brains, or insight, or achievements. Drug czar? We sure won that one under his watch! Education czar? Schools were sure shitty...)
It's really as bad as the "Young Spartacus", just in the opposite side of the spectrum.
This is a good trick for you females. (There ARE some on /., dammit!)
A very attractive, accomplished, intelligent woman played a prank on me. As a party game, she had me close my eyes and trace the outline of "the ideal woman". I figured the game was to get the guy to lose track and laugh at the deformed outline. Something along the lines of "Her breasts are 2 feet above her neck!"
So I concentraited very hard.
"Ok, show where her eyes are."
"Show where her nose is."
"Show where her hair comes down to."
"Show where her breasts are and their approximate size"
"Show where her navel is."
"Show where her waist is."
"Show where her hips are."
I was focussing really hard as the bits got closer together, sure I was creating a monster.
"Show where her vagina is."
I put my finger out and felt a warm, moist cavity.
I fell over laughing - she'd knelt and put her mouth on my finger. I was pretty surprised. And a bit embarrassed.
SW of East Wales?
canon
\Can"on\, n. [OE. canon, canoun, AS. canon rule (cf. F. canon, LL. canon, and, for sense 7, F. chanoine, LL. canonicus), fr. L. canon a measuring line, rule, model, fr. Gr. ? rule, rod, fr. ?, ?, red. See Cane, and cf. Canonical.] 1. A law or rule.
Yes, a Texas Governor tends to sign bills into law that apply to Texas. But only a complete moron would miss the apparent inconsistency of G.W. Bush fighting a voting standard in Florida that he approved in Texas. This was my point and you are a fuckwit to miss it. Is this point spelled out clearly enough? If not, get a cranial enema and read it again.
I am denying that a majority of people in California voted to oust Gray Davis. A minority of those who voted in that election voted for the Gropinator, and due to the provisions of the recall, he's in.
And paid signature gathering as a form of free speech? You can't be serious. That's probably the least apt way to discribe it. Are you denying that a wealthy partisan bought an election? He paid, and the election happened. Is there not a disproportionate advantage to be had by those who can cause elections on topics of their choosing? I'll make it easy: there is. To make it easier: would you want an election to determine whether you got to stay alive? Just putting the question on the ballot is a real disadvantage to you, and an advantage for everyone else...
Revisionist history. Chickenhawks like Bush and Quayle and the other members of the "Millionare Boys Club" flocked to the National Guard because at the time it was considered much safer than taking a chance on the draft. This is indisputable - quit disputing it. And there is no disputing the war record Kerry had. You get right-wing wingnuts who didn't serve with him, and a commander changing his story to suit his politics. It is really weird that Republicans think they can compare the service records - "Kerry didn't get wounded enough! While in contrast, W. may actually have showed up for Guard duty! My mannnnnn!" Amazing.
Here are a few of the "mere" rule interpretations the Supremes ratified: overseas, primarily military ballots will be counted even if late, but ONLY if mailed to Republican-leaning counties - James Baker fought bitterly to deny service men and women the same right to vote late if it appeared they were Democrats; ballot counting standards SIGNED INTO LAW in Texas by G.W. Bush will not be employed because it is inconvenient. You have to face it: only partisan hacks had any respect for the two decisions that decided the election. The first one was decided on the basis that it would "harm G.W. Bush" ! The second recognizes itself as purely political and for the first time in Supreme Court history contains a clause that states, in effect, that this is such terrible law that it is not to be relied on for any kind of precedent.
"Refer to my point of the people being too stupid to exercise the power that they have. That's not the same as them not having the power. There's a fundamental difference between a plutocracy and a democracy but it sounds like you're too stupid to comprehend it."
You appear to be too stupid to understand that money has an effect on elections and the people who win those elections. That is power. Why are you denying it? Two reasons suggest themselves: 1) you are a fuckwit and 2) you favor the results.
Paid signature gatherers are not exactly what the recall provision had in mind. That's the mechanism by which the recall was bought, by a Republican millionaire's private efforts. I grant that it was run according to the letter of the state constitution. It is still fundamentally undemocratic.
And your defense of G.W.'s Guard service - when he bothered to show up - is deeply, deeply pathetic. It has to be among the dumbest things you've ever read. Dangerous missions? Defending Texas against Oklahoma? You should be embarassed.
"Dick C. and George W. Bush were elected by the people."
The people who are the 5 Republican Supremes.
">No longer will I assume that George was skipping National Guard duty in Texas rather than slogging through the jungles of Vietnam because of his family connections. It was probably just the luck of the draw.
George was elected by the people."
Yeah, but his National Guard service was dictated by powerful family connections that allowed him to jump to the head of the line for available positions, despite getting the lowest passing score on the aptitude test. He took a place of safety that belonged to someone else. Someone else went to Vietnam in his place.
"Gray Davis was recalled in a vote cast by the people."
The recall was purchased by a Republican. How many do-overs should the right get? If we were to "recall" the Gropinator, and if that failed, do it again, and again, and again until it stuck, would you be just as happy?
Do you really believe that special interest money has no effect on elections? That lobbying has no effect on politicians? That the electorate tracks the actions of politicians with 100% accuracy? If so, you are a fool. Or else, you should earn a commission on all you save lobbying firms by telling them to stop.
The law prohibiting us from sleeping under a bridge applies equally to the rich and the poor. Does it have the same impact on both? There are two kinds of votes - the ones in the ballot box and the kind that go with $$$.
"We don't have the metrics" when asked whether we were winning - and that was limited to just Iraq. "We don't know the score - we don't even know how to keep score" is not a comforting thing to hear from the nitwit in charge.
I think the answer has to be assessed region by region, with a subjective guesstimate at each point. Are extremist clerics gaining or losing support in city/province/country x,y,z? You can't count the lone gun nuts in any society, but you can probably take a population's temperature to see if the nuts have attained a critical mass. At bottom, I think starting a war of attrition is stupid - we lose those. It should be a hearts-and-minds thing; these we sometimes win. Not often, because we turn them into wars of attrition instead. Sometimes the hearts can't be won, but I think it could have been done in Iraq. Too late - much too late - now.
Indonesian terrorists hit Bali because Australia participated in the coalition of the window-dressing. Spain got hit for the same reason. I think the terrorist cells responsible may have remained debating societies without the invasion of Iraq.
There are some strategies that seem plausible to me, but invading a country unrelated to the 9/11 attacks isn't one of them.
This is weird - #2 as written had a formula actual/potential terrorists > 1 (LESS than one)
I do not believe that all the people who are potential terrorists actually are.
I should also have addressed the proportion of muslim extremists to the total population of Muslims. I don't know what that proportion is, but I believe it is small.
If you think there are fewer terrorists targetting the domestic U.S., I have to conclude one of us is deranged. Do determine which it is, we can ask a few questions:
a 120298.htm
1) is there an upper bound to the number of Islamic extremists? I conclude, yes. The human population is probably an upper bound. It may be reasonable to reduce the upper bound to the population of current muslims. This lower figure is not less than 1 billion. This ignores the effect of conversions such as John Walker underwent. Or we can consider them "current" muslims.
http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/a
2) is the proportion of potential vs. actual Islamic extremist terrorists 1 ? I conclude yes.
3) do the actions of the U.S. (occupying a predominantly Islamic country, killing thousands of non-combantants in the process (even granting that the U.S. military is using unprecedented restraint), torturing and sexually humiliating Iraqi prisoners) affect the proportion in #2? I conclude yes, and that its effect is to increase the proportion of actual to potential terrorists.
4) The nub of the issue: does the effect of #3 completely overwhelm the effect of killing terrorists on a retail scale in Iraq? Remember - that #3 is applied to an upper limit of one billion. A tiny, tiny shift in attitude across that population is going to generate a huge difference in the number of people prepared to attack US interests. I conclude that the answer is yes, the effect of increased hostility of one billion people on the numbers of actual terrorists is likely to dwarf the effect of attrition on Islamic extremists due to combat in Iraq.
5) What proportion of Iraqi fighters killed represent terrorists who would otherwise have been engaged in attacks on U.S. soil? I conclude this is tiny. Most of the resistance is now Iraqi shiites, fighting for a previously reviled cleric that the US has successfully turned into a hero.
Think about it: you are a pissed-off religious fundamentalist who hates the U.S. Do you go to Iraq to fight it where it's strongest? Only if you smell blood and want to get in on what looks like an inevitable humiliation for the U.S. Otherwise, you continue to go after soft, civilian targets. It's not like these guys targetted Ft. Bragg before we invaded Iraq. On the contrary, they went after civilian targets even when there were military targets available.
To the extent we are making the terrorists fight us there instead of here, I think we're only finding the guys who couldn't get here. There may be more of them going to Iraq because they can afford the short commute. These would have stewed in whatever hellhole they found themselves in before we invaded.
A wise dude said of the conflict: "It's not whether we can keep winning battles: we can. The problem is to stop having to fight battles." And they can keep us fighting battles as long as someone is pissed off about a dead relative and has access to an AK-47. This describes 70%+ of the population.
And you have to admit, "If we can properly subdue Iraq and Afghanistan, then we will have gone a long way towards sorting out the Middle East" is a massive hand-wave. The Bush team had absolutely no plan. And worse, they disregarded the plans others made. Bunch of egomaniacle armchair warriors and fuck-ups. These weren't the grownups we were promised.
Let's see - the "killer apps" for home computer use:
web and email. MS both had dick to do with the development of either. The heritage of Linux is much more closely tied.
Instant messaging. IRC was a command-line Unix phenomenon before AOL took over.
Word processing - MS Word was a(n inferior) clone until the advent of Windows. In any event, they didn't pioneer anything.
spreadsheet - they invented this, gotta admit. (*cough* Visicalc *cough*)
GUI operating system - nope.
Network operating systems - oh, wait. Nah, they haven't contributed jack shit here, either.
Directory based network management - nope. AD is a cheap ripoff of NDS, which is itself an evolution of Banyon Vines, which was the result of some deep thinking by standards bodies.
What the hell have they created besides virus vectors? I can't think of a single thing they pioneered in software. Business practices and licensing terms, sure. But actual inventions? Significant departures? I come up empty.
The history of humankind is the triumph of the unworthy (and perhaps its progress in spite of that triumph).
"Tell us what Linux does that we can't do. Don't tell us you're deploying Linux just because you can."
Linux gives the BSA/SPA the finger. Linux immunizes us from external gestapo-style license audits/raids. Linux frees us from total dead-weight, lost-effort, pure-cost license tracking.
How many businesses buy licenses for pc's that came with them? More than a few. It takes less time to just cut a PO covering the number of seats than to collect all the little printed EULAs (which turn out to be useless in an audit anyway!).
Plus - the terms of the MS licenses have gotten absolutely draconian and, to me, unacceptable. They sum up as "All your base..."
I don't care if Windows could match the security and features of Linux, much less the value proposition - the license provisions are a non-starter.
but I think we're blaming the wrong guy.
Bush is a huge flipper. Sure, he sticks to (bad) decisions like glue, but when there's a vote to pick up by shredding a core Republican principle, he'll do it in a heartbeat.
He opposed the Dept. of Homeland Security. Big government, anti-freedom. Oh, polls were in favor. Cool. He's down with it now. Especially as something to bludgeon Dems with. (Who were for it, almost unanimously, and who were among the folks who originated the idea.)
Agricultural subsidies - statist and terrible economics. What - my base in the Red States is addicted to them? Sure!
Free Trade? Sure, unless tariffs on steel might sway West Virginia.
UN involvement in Iraq - "don't need 'em" until we do. Both dumb and a flip flop.
The stem cell position is as agonizingly nuanced and weaselly as anything a Democrat pres or presidential candidate has articulated in the last 30 years.
Bush has almost no principles. Those he has are wrong.
reverse firewalls are like 'inflammable'
tobacco companies spent billions on advertising since the warnings.
Said advertising influenced people's decision to smoke.
ergo: culpability.
Either that or advertising doesn't work.
Ergo: shareholder lawsuits for squandering billions
I agree people should bear responsibility for being a dumbass. But companies should bear responsibility for inducing people to be dumbasses.
A compromised machine loaded a web bug through over a thousand proxies. I wrote it up here:
4 -M ay/008043.php
http://www.dshield.org/pipermail/intrusions/200
It was in my employer's interests!
If I had actively tested, I'd have missed bugs! Costing them money!
I should ask for a bonus.
(former contract testor on SMS 2.0)
I don't believe that humans can transmit the word of God perfectly, any more than they can do anything else perfectly. Both old and new testaments were assembled in a process startlingly similar to that used to create modern day Mission Statements - and we know how unholy those are. So a literal interpretation of any text is, for me, a non-starter. I don't actually think it's logically possible, leaving aside various contradictions in the text. Words have such flexibility, ideas such nuance, that a "literal" interpretation is inherently "that which accords with what I think anyway" much of the time. It's like the flap about "activist" judges: a strict constructionist is one that supports a strong executive in the years 1980-1992, and 2000-2004. It has no other, operative meaning. So a fundamentalist relying on a "literal" basis in the text is actually being naive or disingenuous.
I'll grant that it's pedantic to dispute the literal meaning of "love your God", but there's a lot of doctrine coming out of a lot of people's mouths, and I'm sure they're not prophets. So what are they doing telling me what's on God's mind? Urge me to seek to know that mind, sure. Presume to speak on God's behalf? The recent exhortation of the U.S. VP to Sen. Lahey come to mind.
When he agreed with Falwell that 9/11 was the fault of the targets of his bigotry, that was hate-mongering. Why does he preach against homosexuality while giving Skippers and Long John Silvers - both notorious purveyors of shellfish - a pass? God hates shrimp!
I'm not sure its fair to equate the Aryan Nations and the 700 Club, but it is fair to denounce the 700 Club for its own sins.
By the way, Robertson supported Charles Taylor in Liberia, one of history's Bad Guys. Jesus wouldn't weep, he'd puke.
They cover a wide area:
math: Claiming X - Y (where both X and Y are > 0) = X in a televised debate. "Fuzzy math! Fuzzy math!" The topic was privatizing social security. Gore said, correctly, that diverting payments that go to current retirees to private accounts leaves a shortfall.
biology: doesn't believe in principle of evolution
statecraft: squandered goodwill after 9/11: went from state much sympathized to pariah state much feared.
statecraft 2: got in a land war in asia. They'll trade 2-10 for every one until we're done. We'll win every battle until we quit.
statecraft 3: didn't finish potentially winnable war in asia because of elective war in iraq.
governance: did not prevent torture from being used on those whose hearts and minds we're trying to win.
governance 2: did not anticipate any problems in Iraq. Every expert did. Went in cheap and sloppy.
character: lacks the humility and curiosity necessary to avoid the above mistakes. Leads to worse. For example, should have known that unsupervised, untrained 18 year olds will abuse authority. Or should have hired folks who knew that. Instead, encouraged abuse.
at a certain point, being an optimist equates to being a dumbass. We're long past that point with W.
when the cost of a large component of the economy (energy) quadruples, inflation results.
The deficit spending related to Great Society programs + Vietnam War were quite small compared to the Reagan deficits. The Reagan deficits weren't hugely inflationary. They didn't come at a time of full employment, which would affect the degree of inflationary pressure, but the example/comparison is useful.
Government spending is a piece of the economy. Some studies believe it is less effective a stimulous than consumer spending. I haven't reviewed them, but I'm willing to believe that.
Oh, and Fisher was a genius! I saw this movie where they were comparing a kid to him! (now we're back on topic...)
Poor people pay more tax as a proportion of income than the rich do.
Payroll and sales tax and state/local taxes more than make up the difference.
http://www.ctj.org/html/whopays.htm
You pay $33k/year in *payroll* tax? Not income tax? I'm not familiar with your finances - could you clarify or confirm? There could certainly be a pariah industry singled out by the tax code for the reverse cashmir producer treatment, but it sounds odd.