Politics: J'accuse!

[Not Me]

Originally posted by baltassoc
Based on all those "Taxation without Representation" license plates I see every day, I think the answer is no, she doesn't count. Perhaps you'd be so kind as to make some effort to get that changed.

I would be for the DC being annexed by MD or VA, and increasing their representation in the House proporitonately. But I am not for DC getting statehood and getting 2 Senators.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.techcentralstation.com/051304H.html

*Note to Fringey - This does not imply that I'm am ignoring the bad news. It is only presented for perspective.]

It was/is also important that the Iranians (through Al Sadr's Iran-based mentor) withdrew their support for his little adventure some time ago.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
I would be for the DC being annexed by MD or VA, and increasing their representation in the House proporitonately. But I am not for DC getting statehood and getting 2 Senators.

Do you think Wyoming should continue to be represented by three Senators, or should they be forced to merge with Montana?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you think Wyoming should continue to be represented by three Senators, or should they be forced to merge with Montana?

Wyoming has 3 Senators?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Wyoming has 3 Senators?

Mike Enzi, Craig Thomas, and Dick Cheney. See Article I, Section 3, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution ("The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.").

We all know Cheney really represents Texas, and it would be unpatriotic to question the notion that Texas should have three senators, especially when it could have ten, but the Bush campaign had to take the position that Cheney is from Wyoming to avoid the troubling aspects of Article II, Section 1, clause 3 ("The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves."), and we've all decided to go along with the fiction.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
that wasn't an unbelievably naive picture. It was a relatively intelligent discussion of evolving political stuff. Therefore, it's not fucking ridiculously stupid.

Remember our discussion of batteries and vibrators? I've changed my mind . . . you would be well served with a jackhammer - I don't think they have battery models for those yet.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Remember our discussion of batteries and vibrators? I've changed my mind . . . you would be well served with a jackhammer - I don't think they have battery models for those yet.

I was complimenting your more recent post. Crabass.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Mike Enzi, Craig Thomas, and Dick Cheney. See Article I, Section 3, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution ("The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.").

We all know Cheney really represents Texas, and it would be unpatriotic to question the notion that Texas should have three senators, especially when it could have ten, but the Bush campaign had to take the position that Cheney is from Wyoming to avoid the troubling aspects of Article II, Section 1, clause 3 ("The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves."), and we've all decided to go along with the fiction.

What are you talking about? They're doing something when Cheny votes, and its different from what has always been done, and its for some bad reason? Could you explain. Just explain ther conspiracy theory. For now, no need for supporting bloggage.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What are you talking about? They're doing something when Cheny votes, and its different from what has always been done, and its for some bad reason? Could you explain. Just explain ther conspiracy theory. For now, no need for supporting bloggage.

Why do you see conspiracy theories everywhere you look? I just pointed out that Wyoming gets three votes in the Senate. It's perfectly constitutional. Someone needs to get three.

And kwitcher bloggyachin'. I actually cracked the law books to bring you quotations of real, honest-to-God, not-frequently-cited clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I actually cracked the law books to bring you quotations of real, honest-to-God, not-frequently-cited clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

still atticus' case cite on timmy was the Hank chinaski legal post of the week. thise who haven't seen it, should read it.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Mike Enzi, Craig Thomas, and Dick Cheney. See Article I, Section 3, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution ("The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.").

We all know Cheney really represents Texas, and it would be unpatriotic to question the notion that Texas should have three senators, especially when it could have ten, but the Bush campaign had to take the position that Cheney is from Wyoming to avoid the troubling aspects of Article II, Section 1, clause 3 ("The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves."), and we've all decided to go along with the fiction.

Am I supposed to be taking this post literally? Help me out here, 'kay?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I don't know how we win, but the best thing I've read recently was the piece by Richard Clarke in the NYT a few weeks ago. It's not available for free in their archive, but here is a blog entry from Brad DeLong quoting it at length:

Richard Clarke lays out what would have been in his post-911 memos to George W. Bush, if George W. Bush read memos:

• The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: The Wrong Debate on Terrorism: ...even though we are the world's only remaining superpower — as we were before Sept. 11, 2001 — we are seriously threatened by an ideological war within Islam. It is a civil war in which a radical Islamist faction is striking out at the West and at moderate Muslims. Once we recognize that the struggle within Islam — not a "clash of civilizations" between East and West — is the phenomenon with which we must grapple, we can begin to develop a strategy and tactics for doing so. It is a battle not only of bombs and bullets, but chiefly of ideas. It is a war that we are losing, as more and more of the Islamic world develops antipathy toward the United States and some even develop a respect for the jihadist movement.
  
  I do not pretend to know the formula for winning that ideological war. But I do know that we cannot win it without significant help from our Muslim friends, and that many of our recent actions (chiefly the invasion of Iraq) have made it far more difficult to obtain that cooperation and to achieve credibility. What we have tried in the war of ideas has also fallen short. It is clear that United States government versions of MTV or CNN in Arabic will not put a dent in the popularity of the anti-American jihad. Nor will calls from Washington for democratization in the Arab world help if such calls originate from a leader who is trying to impose democracy on an Arab country at the point of an American bayonet. The Bush administration's much-vaunted Middle East democracy initiative, therefore, was dead on arrival. We must also be careful, while advocating democracy in the region, that we do not undermine the existing regimes without having a game plan for what should follow them and how to get there. The lesson of President Jimmy Carter's abandonment of the shah of Iran in 1979 should be a warning. So, too, should we be chastened by the costs of eliminating the regime of Saddam Hussein, almost 25 years after the shah, also without a detailed plan for what would follow.
  
  Other parts of the war of ideas include making real progress on the Israel-Palestinian issue, while safe-guarding Israeli security, and finding ideological and religious counter-weights to Osama bin Laden and the radical imams. Fashioning a comprehensive strategy to win the battle of ideas should be given as much attention as any other aspect of the war on terrorists, or else we will fight this war for the foreseeable future. For even when Osama bin Laden is dead, his ideas will carry on. Even as Al Qaeda has had its leadership attacked, it has morphed into a hydra, carrying out more major attacks in the 30 months since 9/11 than it did in the three years before.
  
  The second major lesson... there is a risk that concentrating on chain-of-authority diagrams of federal agencies will further divert our attention from more important parts of the agenda.... The more important task is improving the quality of the analysts, agents and managers at the lead foreign intelligence agency, the Central Intelligence Agency.... Many observers, including some in the new department, now agree that the forced integration and reorganization of 22 agencies diverted attention from the missions of several agencies that were needed to go after the terrorists and to reduce our vulnerabilities at home. We do not need another new agency right now. We do, however, need to create within the F.B.I. a strong organization that is vastly different from the federal police agency that was unable to notice the Al Qaeda presence in America before 9/11. For now, any American version of MI-5 must be a branch within the F.B.I. — one with a higher quality of analysts, agents and managers. Rather than creating new organizations, we need to give the C.I.A. and F.B.I. makeovers....
  
  We all want to defeat the jihadists. To do that, we need to encourage an active, critical and analytical debate in America about how that will best be done. And if there is another major terrorist attack in this country, we must not panic or stifle debate as we did for too long after 9/11.

In Richard Clarke's view, after 911 we were positioned to wage war on terror on two fronts: on the domestic front, we would use a revamped and reenergized FBI and CIA to defend ourselves; on the international front, we would ally with Middle Eastern governments and the overwhelming proportion of the Islamic world to wage war against terrorists and jihadists.

Instead, however, we dinked around on the domestic front reorganizing the government. Instead, however, we dinked around on the international front attacking Iraq. The result is that the FBI and CIA are not that much better prepared to defend us, that there is a big danger that a critical mass in the Islamic world will make common cause with jihadists and terrorists, and that the $200 billion we will have spent on the adventure in Iraq could have found much better alternative uses.

I don't know whether Richard Clarke is right. I do know that he has a much greater chance of being right than does Condi Rice, or Richard Cheney, or George W. Bush.

Not Me, since you said we win by dropping bombs, pay attention to this sentence: "It is a battle not only of bombs and bullets, but chiefly of ideas."

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
and we've all decided to go along with the fiction.

Kind of like that dead-guy-Mel-can-still-win-an-election fiction?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't know how we win, but the best thing I've read recently was the piece by Richard Clarke in the NYT a few weeks ago. It's not available for free in their archive, but here is a blog entry from Brad DeLong quoting it at length:

this is helpful. he has no concrete ideas about what to do, but everything we're doing is wrong. If you and I don't listen, and there's another attack, he might write a book saying "I warned Ty and Hank."

Not Me, since you said we win by dropping bombs, pay attention to this sentence: "It is a battle not only of bombs and bullets, but chiefly of ideas."

Notme was talking about a different type of bombing than has happened so far.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Kind of like that dead-guy-Mel-can-still-win-an-election fiction?

Exactly. It was a he's-living-in-Texas-but-shit-let's-just-say-he's-a-Wyoming-resident fiction.