Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I relabeled your paragraphs above for this response:

A. Most people would not be repulsed. Remember that big red area in the middle? They'd applaud it. Bush can't release it because the international reaction would be awful, and even he knows that the most agressive elements of our culture are better kept under wraps.

B. Yes he does. He's boxed in, as I explained before. I'm not doing a "yes he is" v. "no he isn't" thing with you.

C. If Shiekh Muhammed who planned 9/11 is being tortured to get info on other plots, please tell me how that is "wrong." If we save lives by making his temporarily horrific, how is that wrong? You don't know that we don't need to toture anyone. You're saying that, but there's no way you could ever prove that. I can't debate that. It's not an argument. You're crowning yourself omniscient there.

D. Maybe it doesn't. I offered it as an example of how commonly we use the practice. Can you offer me an example of how it hasn't protected our way of life? Again, how do you know? Do you have access to those secret files in Langley?

E. The same thing we had left yesterday. We've ben doing it forever and we'll do it forever. So there's some transparanecy about the prevalence of its use. That's a good thing, no?

F. Why would you quote me religious text? I assume that's a joke.

You seem to think that Americans think torture is great, and that Bush would be open about all the people we are torturing but for his fear about the international reaction. What country have you been living in for the last six years? I'm not kidding. Has a fear of the international reaction ever affected his position on anything? And yet, we still agree that Bush is lying to high-school students when he says we don't torture -- you just think he's doing it for fear of what France will say.

I'm not going to explain to you why torture is wrong, because you already understand that. The question is whether we have any decency left, or whether 9/11 scared us so much that there is no line we won't cross.

This nation is founded on the idea that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among them life and liberty. A country founded on respect for unalienable rights cannot torture people. It's just that simple. If you think it's OK to torture foreigners (or Jose Padilla, for that matter) to improve our pursuit of Happyness, then you do not believe that all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. You believe that might makes right as long as you've got yours. That's unamerican in my book.

In World War II, in the Cold War, America's principles were a source of strength, a reason why we won. The people who support torture do not understand, and think that we win because of our will, or our technology. They don't understand what makes this country great, and they are tearing it down in their own image.

So then you tell me that we have tortured people all along. In a sense, this is true, just as America allowed slavery and interned Japanese-Americans during World War II, to take two examples. The city on the hill is closer to heaven, but it's not heaven. However, imperfection is a long way from debasement. If you can't see the difference between what this President has done and what prior Presidents did, you're being willfully obtuse.

Finally, I quoted the New Testament not because of what it is but of what it says. If that line doesn't speak to you at all, that's too bad.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

One of these cities is not like the others -- one of these cities just doesn't belong.

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the Bay Area today as one of the six urban areas in the country most at risk for terrorist attacks, as it doled out nearly $750 million in anti-terror grants. . . .
  
  The Department of Homeland Security had been criticized in the past by officials from large cities who argued that the government was not living up to promises that it would focus heavily on the risks cities face.
  
  Today, the agency gave 55 percent of the grants to six urban areas --
  
  the Bay Area, Los Angeles/Long Beach, Washington, D.C., Chicago, New York/New Jersey and Houston.

SF Gate

Houston? If you need a sixth city, I would think Detroit would be more at risk.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One of these cities is not like the others -- one of these cities just doesn't belong.

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the Bay Area today as one of the six urban areas in the country most at risk for terrorist attacks, as it doled out nearly $750 million in anti-terror grants. . . .
  
  The Department of Homeland Security had been criticized in the past by officials from large cities who argued that the government was not living up to promises that it would focus heavily on the risks cities face.
  
  Today, the agency gave 55 percent of the grants to six urban areas --
  
  the Bay Area, Los Angeles/Long Beach, Washington, D.C., Chicago, New York/New Jersey and Houston.

SF Gate

Houston? If you need a sixth city, I would think Detroit would be more at risk.

RT can comment better than I can, but perhaps it is a concentration of oil refineries? What is at risk in Detroit? Is there even much of anything there anymore?

ETA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...United_States, I suppose I could do the math, but I don't really want to take the time.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
RT can comment better than I can, but perhaps it is a concentration of oil refineries? What is at risk in Detroit? Is there even much of anything there anymore?

If Mitt Romney wins the election, then perhaps Detroit will replace Houston as number 6 on the list.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
RT can comment better than I can, but perhaps it is a concentration of oil refineries? What is at risk in Detroit? Is there even much of anything there anymore?

And it sits right there on the gulf, er, ocean. What about Miami? Does it have much of a port?


(ETA - the fact that they call this area LA-Long Beach leads me to believe that they might just be a tad bit concerned about the Long Beach port)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
RT can comment better than I can, but perhaps it is a concentration of oil refineries? What is at risk in Detroit? Is there even much of anything there anymore?

I was thinking that the presence of a big Arab (and Arab-American) population is a risk.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure the Bay Area belongs up there with the other four.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
And it sits right there on the gulf, er, ocean. What about Miami? Does it have much of a port?

The refineries in Beaumont and Baytown do 900k bpd, which is almost as much as the world's single biggest refinery, and are both in the Houston area. I thought I had heard that the current high fuel prices were due more to lack of refinery capacity/output and less to shortage of crude oil; that may be some pernicious rumor spread by the oil companies, though, as part of their fight to maintain higher profits and be freed from regulations.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was thinking that the presence of a big Arab (and Arab-American) population is a risk.

Come to think of it, I'm not sure the Bay Area belongs up there with the other four.

I think they would rather travel from Detroit to Houston and actually damage something than bomb some abandoned warehouse in Detroit. Or that we might be more concerned about that.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One of these cities is not like the others -- one of these cities just doesn't belong.

• The U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the Bay Area today as one of the six urban areas in the country most at risk for terrorist attacks, as it doled out nearly $750 million in anti-terror grants. . . .
  
  The Department of Homeland Security had been criticized in the past by officials from large cities who argued that the government was not living up to promises that it would focus heavily on the risks cities face.
  
  Today, the agency gave 55 percent of the grants to six urban areas --
  
  the Bay Area, Los Angeles/Long Beach, Washington, D.C., Chicago, New York/New Jersey and Houston.

SF Gate

Houston? If you need a sixth city, I would think Detroit would be more at risk.

It's a huge port city in addition to the refining activities.

• The Gulf Coast is a major center of economic activity. The marshlands along the Louisiana and Texas coasts provide breeding grounds and nurseries for ocean life that drive the fishing and shrimping industries. The Port of South Louisiana (between New Orleans and Baton Rouge in Laplace) and the Port of Houston are two of the ten busiest ports in the world by cargo volume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Co..._United_States

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
And it sits right there on the gulf, er, ocean. What about Miami? Does it have much of a port?


(ETA - the fact that they call this area LA-Long Beach leads me to believe that they might just be a tad bit concerned about the Long Beach port)

Or, if you are going with Ty's rEdiculous logic, because there are lots of Arab-Americans in Long Beach. Because that is where the risk is -- it's about the level of population of a suspect group, not about (a) targets or (b) level of radicalization of a suspect group. Ty is sounding kind of Slave-ish.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It's a huge port city in addition to the refining activities.

• The Gulf Coast is a major center of economic activity. The marshlands along the Louisiana and Texas coasts provide breeding grounds and nurseries for ocean life that drive the fishing and shrimping industries. The Port of South Louisiana (between New Orleans and Baton Rouge in Laplace) and the Port of Houston are two of the ten busiest ports in the world by cargo volume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Co..._United_States

Woo hoo! What do fringey and I win?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Come to think of it, I'm not sure the Bay Area belongs up there with the other four.

It ascended in importance last November.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Woo hoo! What do fringey and I win?

More pictures of TCOTU crazies?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I thought I had heard that the current high fuel prices were due more to lack of refinery capacity/output and less to shortage of crude oil; that may be some pernicious rumor spread by the oil companies, though, as part of their fight to maintain higher profits and be freed from regulations.

Crude oil is much more expensive, which is a large part of the price increase.

Gasoline is more expensive because demand exceeds supply. Increasing supply is difficult because environmental regulations prevent new refineries and expansion of existing refineries. I blame people who drive hummers.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Crude oil is much more expensive, which is a large part of the price increase.

Gasoline is more expensive because demand exceeds supply. Increasing supply is difficult because environmental regulations prevent new refineries and expansion of existing refineries. I blame people who drive hummers.

Demand exceeds supply in terms of crude oil, or in terms of refined fuel? ETA do price changes seem driven more by changes in capacity (affected when/if a refinery goes offline temporarily) or by changes in the price of crude oil?

Of course, you may be an oil company shill.