Post #193,220
2/6/05 1:26:47 PM
|
Not everybody's vote can be bought.
You've got the quid pro quo entirely wrong. (Actually, you've got pretty much everything entirely wrong, but let's just focus on this.) Bush is giving the heartland exactly what the heartland expected from him. It's what they elected him to do.
Some people care about the larger picture more than a day to day handout. In fact, some people may even resent the handout, if it looks too much like a bribe. There's nothing more infuriatingly condescending than offering a bribe to an honest man. If you were less cynical, you might understand this.
I'd rather trust a man who works with his hands
He looks at you once, you know he understands
- [link|http://lyrics.net.ua/song/132349|Peter Gabriel]
I for one was born in the city, but I rose above that. It's the rural people I identify with. They're simply more real.
And they know better than to conflate social programs with justice.
Oh, and a warning: don't go bringing up white trash and redneck stories, unless you want me to counter with tenement trash stories. (I'll start with the time I knew Jar Jar Binks. No, really. That character was based on an actual real life person. I know because I met him.) Trash is trash everywhere, and everywhere's got trash. Including Hollywood and the corporate boardrooms. The underclass transcends demographics, and even income levels.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, pardon us for winning the election.
Memo to Democrats and to the Left: hatred is not a substitute for vision.
"All the news you wish would go away"
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-we-need-prescription-for-our.html|http://marlowe-essay...tion-for-our.html] - What We Need - a prescription for our times
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/where-i-stand-proverbs-and-axioms-for.html|http://marlowe-essay...d-axioms-for.html] - Where I Stand - Proverbs and axioms for the real world
|
Post #193,351
2/7/05 3:07:41 AM
|
Is there a DisneyLand in your universe too?
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #193,355
2/7/05 3:36:54 AM
|
Ah, so we're back to the 'noble savage' paradigm . . .
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #193,719
2/8/05 8:28:20 PM
|
Savage, no. Noble, yes.
Civilization began with agriculture. Towns came second, and then came cities. The farmer made it all possible.
In the Western world, the only remaining savages are most commonly found in the city, where the prey is more plentiful.
Too great a local population density is a bad idea, for a great many reasons. Especially these days. On 9/11, two flying bombs took out almost three thousand souls who ahppened to be in close physical proximity to one another. A third crashed in rural Pennsylvania, killing far fewer.
Decentralization is the wave of the future. It's just a matter of getting that last mile problem completely licked. We'll still need port cities, but no one will have to live in them anymore. We'll just have waldoes for dockworkers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, pardon us for winning the election.
Memo to Democrats and to the Left: hatred is not a substitute for vision.
"All the news you wish would go away"
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-we-need-prescription-for-our.html|http://marlowe-essay...tion-for-our.html] - What We Need - a prescription for our times
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/where-i-stand-proverbs-and-axioms-for.html|http://marlowe-essay...d-axioms-for.html] - Where I Stand - Proverbs and axioms for the real world
|
Post #193,733
2/8/05 9:48:54 PM
|
You're less coherent than usual in this post.
IMO. As Todd points out below, rural areas have the same kinds of people that urban areas do. With the same problems. Your third paragraph is a true-ism. Yes, if you want to kill a lot of people quickly, well you need a lot of people in a relatively small place. Decentralization is the wave of the future. It's just a matter of getting that last mile problem completely licked. We'll still need port cities, but no one will have to live in them anymore. We'll just have waldoes for dockworkers. You need to elaborate on that a bit. It sounds rather Pol Pot-ish to me. What time frame are you talking about? I think that for the forseeable future (say the next 20 years) cities will continue to grow, especially outside the US. In the vast majority of the world, the best way to increase one's income is to move from a rural area to a city. It's been that way for a long time, and I don't see it changing. And who's going to build all the roads and airports and drive all the trucks to have the cities emptied? Who's going to build the power plants, put up the power lines, dig the sewer lines, etc., for this? Or do you imagine the population of cities simply disappearing? I hope you're not imagining some [link|http://www.agclassroom.org/teacher/history/1820.htm|1820s agrarian utopia] or something. A time when 300 hours of labor was required to produce 100 bushels of wheat, when the US population was < 13 M... Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #194,041
2/10/05 6:42:55 PM
|
Same people as build the roads and drive the trucks now.
Just in a different place. What's your objection, exactly?
If there's anything history teaches us, it's that things change. And we're due for a change. The trend in society these days is decentralization. All sorts of things - computing power, news reportage, publishing - that used to be in hands of natural monopolies or oligarchies are now becoming more democratic, thanks to the Internet. Big government and big business will continue to resist, but they can't hold out forever.
That last mile is the catch. There's simply more bandwidth some places than others, because to the more shortsighted decision makers, that makes too much seeming economic sense. Broadband upload speed is the chief bottleneck. I figure in 20 years, if some assholes ever nuke all our major metropoli, they'll kill a few dozen repairmen and destroy an awful lot of server farms. Mirrored servers in smaller cities will take over, but things will bog down on the `Net for a while. (And the companies that didn't have mirrored servers out yonder will be out of business.)
And then they'll finally lay down some OC-192 fiber in Hootin Holler. Expense is relative.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, pardon us for winning the election.
Memo to Democrats and to the Left: hatred is not a substitute for vision.
"All the news you wish would go away"
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-we-need-prescription-for-our.html|http://marlowe-essay...tion-for-our.html] - What We Need - a prescription for our times
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/where-i-stand-proverbs-and-axioms-for.html|http://marlowe-essay...d-axioms-for.html] - Where I Stand - Proverbs and axioms for the real world
|
Post #194,042
2/10/05 6:49:49 PM
|
Government builds the roads. Teamsters drive the trucks.
|
Post #194,213
2/11/05 2:16:06 PM
|
Won't happen.
Bosses like one thing: Asses in seats that they can walk over to and bust.
Decentralization will not happen until we can get around that cultural barrier.
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #193,385
2/7/05 11:09:16 AM
|
Right and wrong
[link|http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cuts6feb06,0,5530657.story?coll=la-home-headlines|LA Times] Even before the budget is officially sent to Congress on Monday, resistance to Bush's proposals was welling up Saturday from interest groups that benefit from federal aid and from the members of Congress who represent them.
Powerful agricultural interests were among the first to label Bush's proposed budget cuts as unfair and shortsighted. Farmers receive about $15 billion annually in federal farm program payments to help produce major commodities, including corn, cotton, rice and wheat.
California farmers could end up bearing a disproportionate share of the burden if the cuts in crop subsidies were enacted, said economist Daniel Sumner. "Rice and cotton are very important to this state," said Sumner, who is director of the Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis. Farmers are already lining up to complain about the cuts. Which tends to blow your main point out of the water. I've always found it sadly amusing just how many farmers will complain about welfare queens while lining up to get their federal subsidy money. In one sense, Bush's policy here is right though. In the long run, removing subsidies is in the interest of the farmers and the country. Or rather, it is in the interest of the farmers that will survive. The whole thing could be handled vastly better then Bush's plan to simply cut the money and let the chips fall where they may. But you do indirectly have a point here. I have seen quite a few liberals complaining that people are being stupid for voting for Bush because it goes against the interest of their class or against the finances of their class. Which is odd, since it is essentially saying that they where not greedy enough to vote democrat. Voting against Bush because you think he is ruining the economy is a good thing, and against him because you think he favors the rich over the poor is sensible, even voting against him because you think the government needs to support the poor better is a valid idea. Voting against him because you think Kerry would direct more subsidies your way is bad. I for one was born in the city, but I rose above that. It's the rural people I identify with. They're simply more real. I would suspect that you simply have not been around enough to recognize when they are being superficial or fake. Jay
|
Post #193,425
2/7/05 1:10:46 PM
|
Actually no...
In one sense, Bush's policy here is right though. In the long run, removing subsidies is in the interest of the farmers and the country. Or rather, it is in the interest of the farmers that will survive. The whole thing could be handled vastly better then Bush's plan to simply cut the money and let the chips fall where they may.
An American farmer raising a family of 4 cannot compete with a farmer in a 3rd world country raising his family on $50 a year. Furthermore, while it may be in the economic interest to cut our American farmers and allow other countries to raise our food, I'm not certain it's in our best self-defense interests.
But you do indirectly have a point here. I have seen quite a few liberals complaining that people are being stupid for voting for Bush because it goes against the interest of their class or against the finances of their class. Which is odd, since it is essentially saying that they where not greedy enough to vote democrat.
Voting against Bush because you think he is ruining the economy is a good thing, and against him because you think he favors the rich over the poor is sensible, even voting against him because you think the government needs to support the poor better is a valid idea. Voting against him because you think Kerry would direct more subsidies your way is bad.
And you think these cuts are going to affect ADM? Shrug. There's two arguments: Is what a politican doing good for the country? is what a politican doing good for you? If they voted for Bush because they thought he'd do the best job for the country -- shrug. If they voted for Bush because "he's a straight up guy and I can trust him...." -- suckers.
|
Post #193,460
2/7/05 3:44:36 PM
|
Re: Actually no...
In one sense, Bush's policy here is right though. In the long run, removing subsidies is in the interest of the farmers and the country. Or rather, it is in the interest of the farmers that will survive. The whole thing could be handled vastly better then Bush's plan to simply cut the money and let the chips fall where they may.
An American farmer raising a family of 4 cannot compete with a farmer in a 3rd world country raising his family on $50 a year.
Furthermore, while it may be in the economic interest to cut our American farmers and allow other countries to raise our food, I'm not certain it's in our best self-defense interests.
My point about subsidies is that in the long run they generally don't end up in the hand of the people you want them to. Subsidies support a company or person that is having their finances squeezed out of them by some other economic force. But the subsidy doesn't make that force go away, and eventually the same force that killed their profit will eat the subsidy. For example, lets say company A makes something that costs them $10 per unit to make. But company A can't make any money becuase they have to distribute the product through company B that will only buy them for $11 each. The government then decides to subsidize company A for $2 per unit, to support the company. What happens after that is that company B decides to lower it's offer to $9 per unit. It might take a while depending on how much company B thinks it can get away with, and how much economic pressure they can apply, but that will be the result eventually. The end result is that Company A is still nearly broke, and Company B is getting the subsidy. And that is the fundamental problem with long term subsidies, and why many farmers can't make any money despite heavy subsidies. If the government really wants to protect US farmers against low paid foreign farmers, then tariffs on imports is the better solution. And I do agree that a country has a vested interest in protecting enough of it's food market to support itself. Shrug. There's two arguments:
Is what a politican doing good for the country?
is what a politican doing good for you?
If they voted for Bush because they thought he'd do the best job for the country -- shrug.
If they voted for Bush because "he's a straight up guy and I can trust him...." -- suckers. If they voted for Bush because they think they can trust him, then they are suckers. What I was commenting on is the number of liberals that think people where stupid for voting for Bush because voting for Bush was against their monetary self interest. Jay
|
Post #193,463
2/7/05 3:57:57 PM
|
s/shrug/idiots/
Bush may be bad for particular people, but he's also bad for the country as a whole as well.
I think that this is likely to be clear even to most current supporters within 10 years.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #193,465
2/7/05 4:06:25 PM
|
I guess what I was trying to say...
If they voted for Bush because they think they can trust him, then they are suckers. What I was commenting on is the number of liberals that think people where stupid for voting for Bush because voting for Bush was against their monetary self interest.
is that there's only two reasons (well one actually) for voting for a politican, you think they're going to do something for you. (Either directly or indirectly) Liberal are no better or worse than conservatives on this.
|
Post #193,468
2/7/05 4:28:34 PM
|
And you're wrong on that
There are also people who vote for someone because they believe that that someone will do the right thing, even though it may be personally inconvenient.
Like someone returning a stranger's wallet, it is something that is easy to mock, but happens more than we think.
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #193,530
2/7/05 11:12:47 PM
|
<grin> I'm not sure that that's not
doing something for you...indirectly. :-) As such an individual would lead to better government (and less corruption) which would (eventually) benefit you again, no?
|
Post #193,535
2/8/05 12:03:08 AM
|
That would be a big stretch
With enough work you can coerce any theory into your preconceptions.
The better way to reach in this case is to note that it is a benefit to me for me to see things that I want to happen, happen.
This, of course, pushes the problem down one level, and we're now left to wonder if people only want things of benefit to themselves. (The answer to which may depend on how we define "benefit".)
Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #193,754
2/8/05 11:45:35 PM
|
Perhaps...
but I guess I don't look at the situation as a us-vs-them approach whereas they are evil (or greedy) and we're wholesome (and perhaps stupid. ;-)).
Each group works toward their own self-interest to some degree and to their vision for the country. I'm not about to claim their vision is evil as I believe that is intellectually dishonest. I do have lots of problems with their vision for the country, for a variety of reasons, and am more than willing to point those out.
But I won't be dishonest with myself to claim that I'm not working toward my own vision and my own self-interests.
Back to the original post (to tie it all back together again), I don't agree with Bush's tactics for cutting subsidies to the farmers will bring lower food prices to Americans (or that it's beneficial to our farmers). I do agree with Jay that tariffs are a better solution than subsides.
And yes, I think (as a liberal) that if you voted for Bush and are now getting nailed by his polities, you're getting what you deserve and have no right to complain.
|
Post #193,547
2/8/05 8:58:17 AM
|
B.S.
Simon pontificates:
is that there's only two reasons (well one actually) for voting for a politican, you think they're going to do something for you. (Either directly or indirectly)
Liberal are no better or worse than conservatives on this.
A "liberal" (whatever that means) like me supports/votes for politicians whose policies are never targetted for my personal benefit. I have never voted for a politician on the basis of self-interest. Recent example: in a move uncommonly progressive for a Repo-man, our new governor - W's former Budget Chief - Mitch Daniels recently called for a one-time-only additional 1% state income tax on all those Hoosiers (all 6% of them) who have an adjusted gross income above $100,000. That alone would balance the books (i.e. the school budgets, state aid for the poor, etc.)
Most of the people in that group are - rightly - Republicans. I am fortunate to find myself in that group. I wrote the governor congratulating him on this move and asked him (in kinder words) why in hell if it balanced the budget to do that would he not make that additional 1% permanent as opposed to slashing programs to help 94% of the state's population.
(Aside: this is a typical Repo policy, sacrifice ~95% of the population for the benefit of the ~5%. It's also consistent with the way capitalists think.)
Note: If he had made this proposal during the campaign, moreover, if he had made the case for a permanent 1% tax for those in the top 6%, he would have gotten my vote. So there is an example of a "liberal" voting intentionally against his self-interest.
The difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that so-called conservatives vote exclusively in their own self-interest, liberals vote in the interest of everyone. There is a HUGE difference between them.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #193,585
2/8/05 11:12:34 AM
|
You've just got a different definition of self-interest. :)
Having the plebes cared for so they don't put you up against the wall and shoot you when the revolution comes is, while more long-term, definitely in your own self-interest.
"Here at Ortillery Command we have at our disposal hundred megawatt laser beams, mach 20 titanium rods and guided thermonuclear bombs. Some people say we think that we're God. We're not God. We just borrowed his 'SMITE' button for our fire control system."
|
Post #193,598
2/8/05 12:11:20 PM
2/8/05 12:11:41 PM
|
Naw, if that's what I was worried about.
I'd support Dub in his efforts to eliminate liberty for "the great unwashed." ;0)
Besides, the revolution will, of course, need "professional revolutionaries" and that's what I plan to be. :-)
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
Edited by mmoffitt
Feb. 8, 2005, 12:11:41 PM EST
|
Post #193,759
2/9/05 12:20:05 AM
|
Perhaps...
but I think, if you look, you'll find issues where conservates voted and the politicans didn't receive a dime. Furthermore, while you state that you're a liberal and voting for the interest of everyone...you didn't state how voting to increase a tax of 1% would be in the interests of everyone. Most conservates would point out that we're rescuing our government, by allowing them to go to the well without learning fiscal discipline. The goal isn't to allow kids to suffer at school but rather to force government to eliminate waste. (And our government specialises in creating waste) Likewise, most liberal would point out that our government is very good at creating waste and politicans salaries simply don't go down when there's a revenue shortfall. The only people to suffer are those who can't defend themselves politicially (usually kids). Furthermore the long term costs of failing to provide for the kids now grow over the years. (Pay me now or pay me later.) There's different views.
Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate -- and quickly.
-- Robert A. Heinlein, Notebooks of Lazarus
|
Post #193,805
2/9/05 2:21:05 PM
|
But the politicians salaries are NEVER on the block.
Even if I grant the outrageous supposition that "conservative politicians" are motivated by fiscal responsibility - cough, cough, GAG! - how do 'splain that a personal pay-cut is never a part of their efforts?
Furthermore, while you state that you're a liberal and voting for the interest of everyone...you didn't state how voting to increase a tax of 1% would be in the interests of everyone.
You make a good point. That was a judgement on my part. See, I think that hiring enough teachers so that a 35:1 student/teacher ratio is reduced, fixing crumbling public schools, providing Medicaid to the poor, mental health services to those who need them, not charging public school children "book rental fees" for non-existent books, etc., in short all the things that the additional estimated $260 million dollars could buy, but the governor says must be cut, is in everyone's interest. Others disagree. They're called Republicans. And Indiana is lousy with them.
bcnu,
Mikem
Eine Leute. Eine Welt. Ein F\ufffdhrer.
(Just trying to be accepted in the New America)
|
Post #193,577
2/8/05 10:38:10 AM
|
Nah, not for you... TO you.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #193,421
2/7/05 1:01:11 PM
|
Which is why Bush brought it during his campaign...
right?
|
Post #193,726
2/8/05 9:27:16 PM
|
Transcending your urban roots, eh?
"I for one was born in the city, but I rose above that. It's the rural people I identify with. They're simply more real."
Guess you have more in common with the resident than we would have thought possible. Specifically - all hat, no cattle. A Poseur.
So, word up, pardner. My family is both [link|http://www.deckervillelibrary.com/Trodden%20Pathways%20Page%2042.htm|rural] and [link|http://www.deckervillehosp.org/|progressive]. Small town medicine - Gramps made house (and barn) calls. Mom became a med tech and ran the lab. Real enough? Real enough to understand that abstinence programs don't cut it. Real health care solutions are required. Small town doctors are out on their own. They often have to play god. No airlifting then. Sometimes its best to let folks die, or feed their addiction so they can function, or help them pass on comfortably. No right wing bible thumping there. Folks just do what they can to get along and help each other. Every family gathering I hear the stories, the cases, the farm equipment accidents/amputations, morphine addicts from the war, babies born out of wedlock, the little tragedies and victories. I can still go to that town today and drop my name and receive instant hospitality and gratitude and I never lived there myself although my parents are remembered well enough.
Urbanization is a pretty recent twist for us. I'm pretty comfortable about where I came from my views are inherited because that's just the value system in our tribe.
So don't give me that salt of the earth shit - that little town of 1000 has all the same problems as a major urban city - only we can put names and faces to the problems too.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #194,040
2/10/05 6:25:11 PM
|
Once again, you get it all backwards.
All the true progressives are on the right now. The left is just a bunch of grizzled reactionaries.
Say, isn't it wonderful how Dubya appointed a black woman Secretary of State? And it was over that former Kleagle Robert Byrd's objections, too.
Everywhere starts out with the same problems, but they don't fester and get out of control to the same degree everywhere. Part of it is culture, but part of it is population density. Big cities are simply too hard to manage.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Well, pardon us for winning the election.
Memo to Democrats and to the Left: hatred is not a substitute for vision.
"All the news you wish would go away"
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/what-we-need-prescription-for-our.html|http://marlowe-essay...tion-for-our.html] - What We Need - a prescription for our times
[link|http://marlowe-essays.blogspot.com/2005/01/where-i-stand-proverbs-and-axioms-for.html|http://marlowe-essay...d-axioms-for.html] - Where I Stand - Proverbs and axioms for the real world
|
Post #194,205
2/11/05 2:01:00 PM
|
Re: Once again, you get it all backwards.
>Say, isn't it wonderful how Dubya appointed a black woman Secretary of State?
You mean the incompetent black woman? Surely you're not pro-affirmative action?
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #194,298
2/11/05 10:34:18 PM
|
Condi's competence isnt in question, its her motives
I love her dearly, far beyond any creature I've ever known, and I can prove it, for never once in almost seventy years of married life have I taken her by the throat. Mind you, it's been a near thing once or twice.
George Macdonald Frasier
Clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #194,590
2/14/05 2:50:21 PM
|
As NSA - she wasn't exactly on the ball in summer 2001
when she was blowing off memos that were describing active threats involving airplanes and such.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #194,682
2/14/05 8:58:16 PM
|
GIVE IT A FREAKIN BREAK!!!
In 1998 in the FAA it was discussed at wienie level (my level) that 911 was inevitable, that the public would not stand for the measures needed to stop one until it happened. So she got memos that said this was gonna happen, The prez calls the FAA and asks what it would take to stop it. The FAA tells him and the prez orders it. It would have lasted 3 days before the entire airline industry/congress/senate would have been roasting the bush jewels over a fire. It was politically impossible to put safeguards in place at the time.
Now my bitch is why tweedle dum and tweedle dee feeb was busy shooting babies in the head in Idaho instead of tracking fuckwits who didnt want to learn to land a jumbo jet. That is Justice, not NSA.
regards,
daemon
I love her dearly, far beyond any creature I've ever known, and I can prove it, for never once in almost seventy years of married life have I taken her by the throat. Mind you, it's been a near thing once or twice.
George Macdonald Frasier
Clearwater highschool marching band [link|http://www.chstornadoband.org/|http://www.chstornadoband.org/]
|
Post #194,689
2/14/05 9:18:23 PM
|
Stop it.
Why introduce such a thing as reality into the hindsight?
Monday morning quarterbacks are always better than the real thing.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #194,707
2/15/05 1:20:14 AM
|
I can forgive missing the jet attacks
but the followup stuff was totally inexcusable - the insistence that the aluminum tubes were for centrifuges despite the fact that numerous US scientists came forward and tried to tell her that the things weren't any good for that. Cracks like "we just don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud".
That shit that rushed us into war when a more measured response was called for - that makes her unfit for duty in my book.
"Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain
"The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein
"This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush
|
Post #194,715
2/15/05 8:11:44 AM
|
I believe we said the same thing about Clinton...
course then, the Right-wing was claiming that Clinton (et al) were taking bribes^h^hdonations from the airlines.
No, the interesting aspect to this case was Rice claiming that the Clinton Administraition NEVER WARNED Bush about Laden being a threat.
The memo proves that lie.
|
Post #195,257
2/17/05 6:32:57 PM
|
GIVE IT A FREAKIN BREAK YERSELF!!!
How much "additional security measures" would it have taken to properly screen for box cutters (not Box cutters) ferchrissakes. the only thing it would have taken is hiring something resembling competent screeners how did something other than sit on their lardasses and collect a paycheck. The FAA stuff you refer to was attempted empire building. Nothing more. Nothing less.
But as we all know, Empire trumps Competence any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Puh-fukkin-LEEEEZE!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #195,274
2/17/05 7:56:44 PM
|
They didn't use box cutters.
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=149598|#149598]. They used knives that were legal to have on the planes.
More screeners wouldn't have helped that part of the problem. The problem was the actions of the hijackers. If pocket knives were forbidden, they would have used scissors. If scissors were forbidden they would have used ...
Before 9/11/2001, if a group of people was determined to do damage to passengers and crew and take over a plane in the US, there was little that could have been done to prevent them with the regulations that were in place. The rules didn't covers such a contingency. They were designed to prevent handguns and explosives from getting on board.
Nice rant though. ;-)
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #195,361
2/18/05 10:16:43 AM
|
Two points....
First off, regardless of whether it was boxcutters/permissionable knives (and aren't boxcutters utilities knives and permissionable anyway?) fiberglass knives and other weapons exist (and have been sold) that would never been picked up by metal detectors.
Second, it wasn't that there wasn't much that they could do, it was that the SOP at the time was to go along with hijackers because they held the passengers and plane as a valuable object. Even though there had been previous attempts to use the plane itself as a weapon, such attacks had really not been successful and were therefore not considered.
|
Post #195,393
2/18/05 12:57:03 PM
|
You're Welcome! ;-)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT
|
Post #193,736
2/8/05 9:58:58 PM
|
Having grown up on farms . .
. . where "going into town" meant a town of well under 1000 souls, I have a far less idealized view of rural America - perhaps a convert's zeal provides the rosy tint. Anyway, been there, done that and ain't goin' back.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #193,784
2/9/05 12:54:15 PM
|
You must have been going to the county seat.
Town, had population of ~500 in the winter when farmers moved to town so kids could get to school. Summer population was significantly lower.
Post Office.
2 Elevators
3 Bars
Drug Store
Fire Truck (usually a pickup with a sprayer attachment)
School
2 Gas Stations
sometimes a Grocery Store (otherwise head for county seat, 20 mi down the road)
Summer fallowing sunup-sundown. Combine wheat, oats, & barley. Few cows, chickens.
Hard work..
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
|
Post #193,862
2/9/05 8:59:37 PM
|
Actually, it wasn't quite that bad.
I only lived on farms in Blue States, so a sizeable town or small city would never be too far away.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #193,883
2/9/05 10:26:13 PM
|
Montana
Big Sky. Big Red State. Sadly even my brothers are "red".
Drove one time from Glasgow (NE corner) to Billings (SCentral). Passed though COUNTIES with population of 2 and 10.
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
|
Post #193,887
2/9/05 10:36:15 PM
|
Yeah, as thy used to say, 'Better dead than red'
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
