Politics: A new beginning - Page 40

Atticus Grinch · 10-20-2003, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
So I've decided to join in the fun on this board after reading Al Franken's "Lies" book this weekend.

Welcome. Before posting substantively, you should ketchup on all posts on this board since inception, including the infamous "Is the Income Tax Theft?" debate.

Oops. Lucky you. Sic transit gloria mundi. Well, post away!

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Exposing the flaws in a security system that will never be perfect, and which relies in part on deterrence, is a matter of dubious morality.

From what I can tell, saying that the TSA "will never be perfect" is literally true but profoundly wrong. It is an unimaginative, poorly functioning bureaucracy. How else to spur improvement than by focusing public attention on its failings?

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2003, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
I think Easterbrook made interesting and fair points and is getting a raw deal by the herd-instinct mass-media who sees an easy story by being intellectually dishonest. What Easterbrook was getting at is painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain in their heads, and it has nothing to do with greedy jews.

Mickey Kaus, in Slate, tries to explain what he thought Easterbrook was thinking.

I'm unimpressed with ESPN's firing of him. They seem to be more interested in getting revenge for Eisner than they are in maximizing shareholder (i.e., my) value. Not that Easterbrook has a material effect on the annual report, but still.

Atticus Grinch · 10-20-2003, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
From what I can tell, saying that the TSA "will never be perfect" is literally true but profoundly wrong. It is an unimaginative, poorly functioning bureaucracy. How else to spur improvement than by focusing public attention on its failings?

This sounds suspiciously like a rhetorical question. The answer cannot be "by surreptitiously breaking the law in order to embarass the law enforcement agency." It's the hacker mentality with real lives at stake.

He's not the worst guy who ever lived or anything, but he was playing with fire.

The above was your 666th post in the post-PB meltdown world. So maybe you're fucking with me here.

Chunky Monkey · 10-20-2003, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Anyone have an opinion about ESPN firing (and expunging) Gregg Easterbrook?

Man, you aren't kidding. Wiped off the face of the earth.

If that's not a sign that the media monopolies have too much power, I don't know what is.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2003, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
So I've decided to join in the fun on this board after reading Al Franken's "Lies" book this weekend. As a political agnostic with conservative tendencies, I'm curious if anyone has challenged the veracity of anything in Franken's book? Reading it made me hate hate hate Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly. Especially Coulter.

I think Easterbrook made interesting and fair points and is getting a raw deal by the herd-instinct mass-media who sees an easy story by being intellectually dishonest. What Easterbrook was getting at is painfully obvious to anyone with half a brain in their heads, and it has nothing to do with greedy jews.

Oh yeah. I read on the other board that you have entered into the Republican sacramental bond of marriage. Congratulations, I think and hope! Having taken part in the oppression of democrats everywhere, i assure you my credentials are the most goodest on the board as a conservative. That said, I and other conservatives here appear* to be intellectualy honest enough to admit that Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly are a buncha dopes.

As for veracity, I'll never read that ugly motherfucker's book, but a liberal at my firm read it and challenged me to find where it was ever shown that the media was biased** as liberal or democratic or something. Ten minutes later, I told him he would never be taken seriously again. It was almost unfair to characterize the studies as studies... they were more like confessionals. 80% of those in the media who were surveyed admitted that they were adherents of Marxist, or at least admitted that their sympathies leaned*** towards the democratic party. Anyway, congratulations again. Are you registered at Crate & Barrel under str8? If so, I might be getting you something (I just looooove that store).

Hello

* In reality, I think everyone here usually tries to be, which is nice
** Biased being an understatement. It was more filled with hate to anyone who is not...
*** Leaned, yeah right. If Marxism was a deep swimming pool, the press would be drowning in it.

Tyrone Slothrop · 10-20-2003, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
This sounds suspiciously like a rhetorical question. The answer cannot be "by surreptitiously breaking the law in order to embarass the law enforcement agency." It's the hacker mentality with real lives at stake.

He's not the worst guy who ever lived or anything, but he was playing with fire.

The above was your 666th post in the post-PB meltdown world. So maybe you're fucking with me here.

He wasn't playing with fire. Your argument is that if they go soft on him, Al Qaeda will use dopes to smuggle box cutters on board planes, and if they're caught they'll get away with it because the TSA will be too stupid to realize the difference. While I concur with the latter assessment, I don't think that what this guy did increased the risks we face. The stuff he smuggled was found where he left it, right? In fact, he made us all safer by pointing to the crappiness of TSA's security procedures, which appear calculated to convince us that we're being inconvenienced so much that we must be safer. TSA should punt its adherence to searching everyone, and hire some smart people to profile and interview passengers the way the Israelis do it.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2003, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I will remember this defense next time I am caught speeding. "You Honor, I was just trying to expose the flaws in the speed traps so that they may be corrected."

It may have been so long ago that it seems like it never happened, but presumably, at some point, you learned that some crimes require some form of "intent". Additionally, the reason I brought up the topic was because of our recent conversations on "prosecutorial discretion", esp. in regards to narcotics cases.

Anyway, I'm not saying that he's not actually guilty of some felony or other. I'm just saying that if they can give him a job for $8.00 per hour so they can hear his theories before they have to search 8000 planes, he might be able to help them avoid, well, searching 8000 planes.

Additionally, it would make government seem a bit less inept, and a bit more interested in keeping people safe. Which makes politicians look a bit better.

Put him in jail, and it partly looks like you are jailing a critic who is pointing out how you aren't keeping us safe. Which makes me feel a bit less confident in your abilities*. Which makes me want to vote for someone else to be in charge.

See where I'm going with this? To me its about what's right, but to the executive branch, it'll be about appearances.

No doubt.

Hello

* The terms "you" and "your" being replaceable, generally, with "the government" or some variation thereof.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2003, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
TSA should punt its adherence to searching everyone, and hire some smart people to profile and interview passengers the way the Israelis do it.

Holy fuck. Sgt. Club, can you pile on with me here??? CtD? Fluffy?

Tyrone, I totally agree. Totally.

Hello

Shape Shifter · 10-20-2003, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me

Anyway, I'm not saying that he's not actually guilty of some felony or other. I'm just saying that if they can give him a job for $8.00 per hour so they can hear his theories before they have to search 8000 planes, he might be able to help them avoid, well, searching 8000 planes.

I say make him do this for free as part of his plea agreement.

I remain unconvinced by the sincerity of his efforts. I'm not saying he was a terrorist. But maybe he got a little thrill or ego boost by doing this.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2003, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I say make him do this for free as part of his plea agreement.

I remain unconvinced by the sincerity of his efforts. I'm not saying he was a terrorist. But maybe he got a little thrill or ego boost by doing this.

I almost guarantee that he did. And its quite similar to the boost that, e.g., a joyrider might get.

I like the plea agreement idea too. I'm just saying, give the kid a bit of motivation to cooperate by, e.g., not putting a felony on his record.

Ever see Catch Me If You Can?

Something like that.

Anyway, it looks like an opportunity to me. But, much like the Palis, our government almost never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Hello

ltl/fb · 10-20-2003, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
That said, I and other conservatives here appear* to be intellectualy honest enough to admit that Coulter, Hannity and O'Reilly are a buncha dopes.

* In reality, I think everyone here usually tries to be, which is nice

What board have you been on? Or are you exploring the wonderful world of controlled substances a few decades after the rest of us?

I go out of town a couple days and everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Jeez.

The Larry Davis Experience · 10-20-2003, 08:40 PM

Did anyone happen to see this story today?

Quote:

New agency to handle spending on Iraq
Operation to be run by World Bank and U.N.

Bangkok -- Under pressure from potential donors, the Bush administration will allow a new agency to determine how to spend billions of dollars in reconstruction assistance for Iraq, administration and international aid officials say.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGKC2F5651.DTL

Last week we saw the headlines trumpeting the broad resolution of support from the UN naming Bremer & Co as the official authority for Iraq reconstruction. Now, in a much quieter story leaked/developed over the weekend and appearing below the fold on the front page, it turns out that there will be an independent third party organization coordinating the international aid after all.

Quote:

"We had to act because the international community was stonewalling us on aid," an administration official said. According to the official, Bremer said, "I need the money so bad we have to move off our principled opposition to the international community being in charge."

It's funny...I think this is actually great news on the political front for GWB. In other words, the overall perception is that Bush got the reso he wanted from the UN without ceding any authority to foreign control. But functionally the arrangement described in this article will be far different from what that resolution describes. So, there's no loss of "face" to those conniving Francophiles in the UN, but the admin does what it needs to do to get more dough poured into fixing up Iraq.

I'll be interested to see if the money Japan has pledged already goes directly to the US authority or to this new international one. Or, taking this further, if the existence of the two funds results in donations to be characterized as a "we support the US" pledge or a "we don't necessarily like the US, but we need to rebuild Iraq so it doesn't become another Afghanistan" pledge, depending on which fund gets the $$$.

Say_hello_for_me · 10-20-2003, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
What board have you been on? Or are you exploring the wonderful world of controlled substances a few decades after the rest of us?

I go out of town a couple days and everything goes to hell in a handbasket. Jeez.

Well, when was the last time someone said something nice about Coulter, Hannity or O'Reilly here?

I even said something nice about Mary Mitchell of the Chicago SunTimes (a Daley wag for the Daley rag).

So I'm just saying, I'll give you *my* Coulter*, if you promise never to make me listen to *your* Franken.

Or whatever.

Whatever whatever.

Hello

*Uhm, not really "my" Coulter; and certainly less hurtful for me to give up than, e.g., reaching in my pocket and pulling out the lint.

ltl/fb · 10-20-2003, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Well, when was the last time someone said something nice about Coulter, Hannity or O'Reilly here?

Who can say? The old stuff is all gone. Are you implying that SEF and its ilk do not exist?

Quote:

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
So I'm just saying, I'll give you *my* Coulter*, if you promise never to make me listen to *your* Franken.

*Uhm, not really "my" Coulter; and certainly less hurtful for me to give up than, e.g., reaching in my pocket and pulling out the lint.

I wasn't questioning re: specific people, I was questioning what seemed to be a statement by you that there are not wacko partisans on here. Though, they have not been around as much since the old board "mysteriously" disappeared the other day.