Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hey Spanky, read George Will.

yes. That the President choose to visit one area instead of another is proof positive that everytihng is failing.

Similarly your cites earlier today from several unnamed sources prove positive that Bush ignored everyone and did what he wanted.

you win! It's not Will trying to force some point from a geographic choice, and the other sources don't really just evidence the opposite of your point, that there is discussion and several viewpoints across the people who are involved in the decision.

Do you get that once the President has made a decision, the people who urged against that direction are always people that weren't able to control the direction. That was true when Washington was President.

I realize your blogger eye view makes you see the running of governemnt as something quite focused, but anyone who has clue one of the relaity realizes this type citation is only so much tripe; all big executive decisions start with disagreement and various views.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

• Six years later: What have we learned?
  Amos N. Guiora
  
  On the eve of the six-year anniversary of Sept. 11 and in the fourth year of the war in Iraq, what have we learned about fighting terrorism? Are we wisely spending our tax dollars? Is there "rhyme or reason" with respect to America's counter-terrorism policy? Is there a policy?
  
  Unfortunately, one of the results of early presidential primaries is that the candidates - many of them with legislative responsibilities - will be spending their time campaigning rather than legislating and overseeing administration policies.
  
  Furthermore, the early primaries mean an enormously long time before the general election, which promises us vapid 20-second sound bites rather than genuine debate and discourse.
  
  However, since the bad guys are out there, we must prepare a tough, substantive check list of questions to ask the presidential candidates in the limited time we have with them.
  
  In answering the broad questions above, we must demand specific answers. The devil is always in the details. We are well beyond President Bush's rightly maligned phrases: "We are winning the war on terrorism," "Bring 'em on" and "Mission Accomplished." So where are we?
  
  The answer is suggested by something I recently witnessed while standing in an airport security line. A 3-year-old boy traveling with his mother was subjected to the "blower." The blower - an unpleasant experience for an adult - detects material required for making explosives. What does subjecting a 3-year-old to the blower unattended by a parent (his mother went through the blower previously) tell me?
  
  It tells me that we have yet to begin risk assessment and analysis, identifying legitimate threats has not been begun and sophisticated cost-benefit analysis of counter-terrorism is apparently in its infancy. How dangerous is this? Very.
  
  As long as 3-year-old boys are made to go through blowers at airport security lines, we clearly are not focusing our limited resources on genuine threats. Rather than develop sophisticated prototyping models, we only hear "you have been selected for a random search."
  
  Effective counter-terrorism can be based neither on 20-second sound bites nor subjecting young children to the blower. Minimizing the terrorist threat requires the following: dramatically improving our intelligence gathering and analysis ability (requires foreign language skills), understanding terrorist motivations and goals, developing terrorist prototypes (not ethnic-based profiling, which is both unconstitutional and ineffective) and developing sophisticated risk-assessment models facilitating cost-benefit analysis of counter-terrorism measures.
  
  Until we develop these four measures, we will continue to subject children to blowers at the nation's airports. Were Osama bin Laden to witness what I observed, he surely would have a good laugh. We need to wipe that smile off his face and get serious - and smart - with respect to counter-terrorism.
  
  We have little, if any, time to waste; the dangers and threats of six years ago have been replaced by far more sophisticated terrorism. Be it cyber-terrorism or bio-terrorism, the terrorist imagination literally knows no bounds.
  
  The determination and motivation to sacrifice for a cause drives terrorists the world over. Their motivation is matched only by their seriousness and sophistication. Measure their sophistication with ours and worry lines need to appear on our collective faces.
  
  While politicians offer vapid generalities, the bad guys are planning the next attacks. It is not "if" but "when." The time to address the four measures was yesterday; we can't wait until tomorrow. Let us resolve to address them, honestly and intelligently, today. We can't afford the inanity of subjecting 3-year-old boys to blowers at the nation's airports.
  
  ---
  * AMOS N. GUIORA is a professor of law at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law. E-mail: guioraa@law.utah.edu

Salt Lake Tribune (more here )

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
yes. That the President choose to visit one area instead of another is proof positive that everytihng is failing.

Similarly your cites earlier today from several unnamed sources prove positive that Bush ignored everyone and did what he wanted.

you win! It's not Will trying to force some point from a geographic choice, and the other sources don't really just evidence the opposite of your point, that there is discussion and several viewpoints across the people who are involved in the decision.

Do you get that once the President has made a decision, the people who urged against that direction are always people that weren't able to control the direction. That was true when Washington was President.

I realize your blogger eye view makes you see the running of governemnt as something quite focused, but anyone who has clue one of the relaity realizes this type citation is only so much tripe; all big executive decisions start with disagreement and various views.

Tell Spanky. He's the one who's surprised that there was disagreement within the military over the surge.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop [list]Six years later: What have we learned?
Amos N. Guiora
.
developing terrorist prototypes (not ethnic-based profiling, which is both unconstitutional and ineffective)

The scariest thing of late is the rise of homegrown terrorists, like the German guys arrested last week.

but I still don't see why profilling Islamic people is not "effective." it might be unconstitutional, it might be wrong, but why is it not "effective?"

honest question.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The scariest thing of late is the rise of homegrown terrorists, like the German guys arrested last week.

but I still don't see why profilling Islamic people is not "effective." it might be unconstitutional, it might be wrong, but why is it not "effective?"

honest question.

When we have this conversation, it's never clear to me what different people mean by "profiling."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When we have this conversation, it's never clear to me what different people mean by "profiling."

do you know what your guy meant?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you know what your guy meant?

No.

But I think I've been pretty clear that TSA relies too much on rules and not enough on discretion.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No.

But I think I've been pretty clear that TSA relies too much on rules and not enough on discretion.

discretion? wow. you have faith that those guys could operate that way? I guess they do all use their own judgement on what the 4 oz. bag rule means, so maybe your way would work.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
discretion? wow. you have faith that those guys could operate that way? I guess they do all use their own judgement on what the 4 oz. bag rule means, so maybe your way would work.

This a crazy idea, so sit down and hold on to your seat. Ready? I'll just wait another second to make sure you're all set. OK? I think TSA should hire better people.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This a crazy idea, so sit down and hold on to your seat. Ready? I'll just wait another second to make sure you're all set. OK? I think TSA should hire better people.

do you realize the hiring restrictions placed upon a civil service agency? Maybe the Dems made a mistake insisting it be set up that way?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
do you realize the hiring restrictions placed upon a civil service agency? Maybe the Dems made a mistake insisting it be set up that way?

If you hate our government so much, why don't you move to Somalia?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you hate our government so much, why don't you move to Somalia?

I elected to be sunni. Would I be cool there?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I elected to be sunni. Would I be cool there?

I read that the electricity situation there is not as good as it was pre-invasion, so not in the summer anyway.

[Spanky]

SB 777 - Homosexual Indoctrination
Bill Passes Assembly Floor

SB 777, the homosexual indoctrination bill, passed the state Assembly this morning by a vote of 43-23. The bill now heads to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk. SB 777 would ban any teaching or activities in schools that "promotes a discriminatory bias against" homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and those with gender (perceived or actual) issues. SB 777 seeks to normalize alternative lifestyles in California schools with special recognition for homosexuality, bisexuality, and transexuality.

"It is simply outrageous that the California legislature continues to ignore the values and beliefs of citizens by forcing this radical homosexual indoctrination on our young children," declared Karen England, CRFI's Executive Director. "

"To understand the full ramifications of this radical legislation, one needs only look at Los Angeles Unified School District's policy concerning transgender and "gender nonconforming" students," stated Meredith Turney, CRFI's Legislative Liaison. "LAUSD policy instructs school to provided access to restroom and locker room facilities that 'corresponds to the gender identity that the student consistently asserts at school.' If a male student 'consistently asserts' himself as a female at school, he will be granted access to female restrooms and locker rooms. This poses a serious danger to the safety of young female students."

"SB 777 will implement statewide the shocking policies LAUSD already enforces. Concerned parents do not want such radical, perplexing policies in their local schools. Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic-not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles," continued Turney.

"SB 777 will also do away with such 'arcane' terms as 'mom and dad' and 'husband and wife,'" stated England. "'Promoting a discriminatory bias' is so vague that it could be interpreted to mean that any reference to traditional families is discriminatory and requires equal time for radical sexual behavior."

Boldly standing in opposition to the outrageous measure were Assemblymembers Ted Gaines, Bob Huff and Chuck DeVore. Assemblyman Gaines expressed his concern that the bill would silence students with traditional values while Assemblyman Huff explained that the education code already protects all students-including homosexuals-from discrimination and "harassment." Assemblyman DeVore inquired of the bill's floor manager, Assemblyman John Laird, why the bill was necessary. When Laird declared that homosexual students are discriminated against, DeVore asked for specific examples. When Laird could not share any such examples, DeVore stated that SB 777 is an "overreaching solution for a nonexistent problem."

"We are thankful that several Assemblymembers stood up for the citizens of California during the floor debate on SB 777," stated Turney. "We hope that Governor Schwarzenegger will do the same by vetoing this legislation that pushes a radical social agenda. Every citizen concerned about the true safety of our children must call the governor and urge his veto of SB 777.


LAUSD Policy

CRI on Fox News Debting SB 777

Read SB 777

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633

Online: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#contact

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
SB 777 - Homosexual Indoctrination
Bill Passes Assembly Floor

SB 777, the homosexual indoctrination bill, passed the state Assembly this morning by a vote of 43-23. The bill now heads to Governor Schwarzenegger's desk. SB 777 would ban any teaching or activities in schools that "promotes a discriminatory bias against" homosexuals, transgenders, bisexuals, and those with gender (perceived or actual) issues. SB 777 seeks to normalize alternative lifestyles in California schools with special recognition for homosexuality, bisexuality, and transexuality.

"It is simply outrageous that the California legislature continues to ignore the values and beliefs of citizens by forcing this radical homosexual indoctrination on our young children," declared Karen England, CRFI's Executive Director. "

"To understand the full ramifications of this radical legislation, one needs only look at Los Angeles Unified School District's policy concerning transgender and "gender nonconforming" students," stated Meredith Turney, CRFI's Legislative Liaison. "LAUSD policy instructs school to provided access to restroom and locker room facilities that 'corresponds to the gender identity that the student consistently asserts at school.' If a male student 'consistently asserts' himself as a female at school, he will be granted access to female restrooms and locker rooms. This poses a serious danger to the safety of young female students."

"SB 777 will implement statewide the shocking policies LAUSD already enforces. Concerned parents do not want such radical, perplexing policies in their local schools. Parents want the assurance that when their children go to school they will learn the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic-not social indoctrination regarding alternative sexual lifestyles," continued Turney.

"SB 777 will also do away with such 'arcane' terms as 'mom and dad' and 'husband and wife,'" stated England. "'Promoting a discriminatory bias' is so vague that it could be interpreted to mean that any reference to traditional families is discriminatory and requires equal time for radical sexual behavior."

Boldly standing in opposition to the outrageous measure were Assemblymembers Ted Gaines, Bob Huff and Chuck DeVore. Assemblyman Gaines expressed his concern that the bill would silence students with traditional values while Assemblyman Huff explained that the education code already protects all students-including homosexuals-from discrimination and "harassment." Assemblyman DeVore inquired of the bill's floor manager, Assemblyman John Laird, why the bill was necessary. When Laird declared that homosexual students are discriminated against, DeVore asked for specific examples. When Laird could not share any such examples, DeVore stated that SB 777 is an "overreaching solution for a nonexistent problem."

"We are thankful that several Assemblymembers stood up for the citizens of California during the floor debate on SB 777," stated Turney. "We hope that Governor Schwarzenegger will do the same by vetoing this legislation that pushes a radical social agenda. Every citizen concerned about the true safety of our children must call the governor and urge his veto of SB 777.


LAUSD Policy

CRI on Fox News Debting SB 777

Read SB 777

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-445-4633

Online: http://gov.ca.gov/interact#contact

Someone should get these people a hobby...