tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post3273396868177310071..comments2024-03-19T05:21:09.868-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: News from the Edge...and BeyondDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55479116839994037352007-03-05T16:44:00.000-08:002007-03-05T16:44:00.000-08:00So, in those six states, each congresscritter repr...<I>So, in those six states, each congresscritter represents more people than thier senators (so to speak).</I><BR/><BR/>I was thinking of my congresscritter in NY who represents nearly a million Constituents as opposed to some of the fine rightwing nuts in the Senate who barely represent quarter million constituents and can block legislation at will.Don Quijotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355584994080980478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40740095920950868072007-03-05T16:29:00.000-08:002007-03-05T16:29:00.000-08:00Here's the relevant text.Wesley Clark to Amy Goodm...Here's the relevant text.<BR/><BR/>Wesley Clark to Amy Goodman:<BR/><EM>I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.” I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.” He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.” This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said, “Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”<BR/><BR/>So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, “I just got this down from upstairs” -- meaning the Secretary of Defense’s office -- “today.” And he said, “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!” </EM><BR/><BR/>Now, that doesn't sound like the anonymous General was informing Clark about a backup plan, in case things went wrong. If it occurred that way, the most obvious explanation is that Anon. believed that the plan was plan A - an intentional, primary target of the listed countries in the short term.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81199616371436390982007-03-05T16:23:00.000-08:002007-03-05T16:23:00.000-08:00Doug S.,Read the transcript. My impression was tha...Doug S.,<BR/><BR/>Read the transcript. My impression was that this wasn't being shown to Clark as an off-hand, "oh by the way we have a backup", but as a "fuck, these nut-cases really are going to do this thing, and I'm slipping you this to try to derail the whole-goddamn-thing."<BR/><BR/>Of course, Wes Clark might be nuts, or have other interests, but if you take him at his word, the interpretation is clear - this administration has had a vigorous plan to extend the war-machine over the entire ME. As I said, read the transcript, then comment as to it's veracity and meaning. Just a bit more info.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-65201378744214061362007-03-05T16:13:00.000-08:002007-03-05T16:13:00.000-08:00Doug S. is correct.Look up "Rainbow War Plans", wh...Doug S. is correct.<BR/>Look up "Rainbow War Plans", which covers the period between 1916 and December 7 1941. The plans were color coded (Hence the name 'Rainbow') and covered everything from the invasion of Canada (Crimson), a attack on the Carabean by Germany (Black), a civil war in the U.S. (White), invading the Azores (Grey) and the most famous, a war over the Phillipines with Japan (Orange).<BR/>I know that there is a office in the Pentagon whose entire existance is dedicated to maintaining war plans for anything that anyone can think of. The existance of the plan doesn't worry me, the part where people are dusting them off and updating them does.<BR/><BR/>Don Q...<BR/>There are a couple of states with only one congressman, and (of course) two Senators.<BR/>(quick google search: Alaska, Montana, North and South Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont)<BR/>So, in those six states, each congresscritter represents more people than thier senators (so to speak).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70311804296333663902007-03-05T15:49:00.000-08:002007-03-05T15:49:00.000-08:00There are probably plans for an invasion of France...There are probably plans for an invasion of France in some filing cabinet or other in the Pentagon. Military people make lots of plans for even ridiculous situations, expecting that they will never be looked at again. The existence of plans to do something militarily does not mean that those plans were ever intended to be put into action/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91590596808367149772007-03-05T11:16:00.000-08:002007-03-05T11:16:00.000-08:00Here's the original transcript from Democracy Now:...Here's the original transcript from Democracy Now: <A HREF="http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/02/1440234" REL="nofollow">Wesley Clark</A>RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-8884212257041415122007-03-05T11:10:00.000-08:002007-03-05T11:10:00.000-08:00According to Wes Clarke, the Iran war was planned ...According to Wes Clarke, the Iran war was planned by 9/20/01, according to an internal memo leaked to him: <A HREF="http://thismodernworld.com/3595" REL="nofollow">7 War Memo</A>.<BR/><BR/>They seem to have had to skip right to the end, due to unforeseen difficulties!RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-40757570687380848962007-03-02T16:53:00.000-08:002007-03-02T16:53:00.000-08:00Incompetence and Ockam's razor again. So do we bel...<I>Incompetence and Ockam's razor again. So do we believe in conspiracy, or a fundamentally broken system? Cause a system that risks blundering into nuclear exchange is fundamentally broken. Maybe it's just my optimism that inclines me toward conspiracy!</I><BR/><BR/>Incompetence!!! And a broken system. <BR/>The system has been broken for quite a while now.<BR/><BR/>The mass media has been completely captured by the corporate right and the information isn't making it's way down to the population at large, and when it does, it's incomplete or inaccurate. We live in a propaganda state.<BR/><BR/>Our elections are a joke, the candidates are forced to raise a fortune that they then spend on TV commercials which then strengthen the stronghold the Mass Media has on the populace.<BR/><BR/>Why are Hillary, Obama or Edwards considered viable candidates, because they can raise the hundreds of million necessary to run for office, not because of their track records (3 one term senators), their ideas ( I eagerly wait to hear them), or their vision for the future. Now I pick on the Democratic candidates, but the same can be said about the Republican candidates, of most Senatorial and Congressional Candidates with a handful of exceptions( Ron Paul, Kucinich, Sanders, Feingold).<BR/><BR/><BR/>I won't discuss the fact that quite a few States have a massive over representation in the Senate, or that the fact that the number of people every congressman represents goes up every year, by now I am pretty sure that there are Congressman who represent more people than some Senators.Don Quijotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355584994080980478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-84778267500187382372007-03-02T16:11:00.000-08:002007-03-02T16:11:00.000-08:00DQ last post: that was a report to Congress, that ...DQ last post: that was a report to Congress, that mis-reported the rate of NK development of nukes, leading to the cut-off of negotiations that then actually lead to NK speeding up their nuke development.<BR/><BR/>Incompetence and Ockam's razor again. So do we believe in conspiracy, or a fundamentally broken system? Cause a system that risks blundering into nuclear exchange is <EM>fundamentally</EM> broken. Maybe it's just my optimism that inclines me toward conspiracy!RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-10856453036673938412007-03-02T05:40:00.000-08:002007-03-02T05:40:00.000-08:00Belfast Telegraph - CIA blunder 'prompted Korean n...<A HREF="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/article2320849.ece" REL="nofollow"> Belfast Telegraph - CIA blunder 'prompted Korean nuclear race'</A><BR/><BR/><B>he United States appears to have made a major intelligence blunder over North Korea's nuclear weapons programme, one that may have exacerbated tensions with Pyongyang over the past four years and goaded Kim Jong-Il into pressing ahead with last October's live nuclear test, intelligence and Bush administration officials have said.</B><BR/><BR/>Impeach G W Bush now, before his screw ups start World War III.Don Quijotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355584994080980478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9705776129766665482007-03-02T04:49:00.000-08:002007-03-02T04:49:00.000-08:00Haaretz - U.S. takes harder line on talks Between ...<A HREF="http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/829441.html" REL="nofollow"> Haaretz - U.S. takes harder line on talks Between Jerusalem, Damascus</A><BR/><BR/><B>The United States demanded that Israel desist from even exploratory contacts with Syria, of the sort that would test whether Damascus is serious in its declared intentions to hold peace talks with Israel.<BR/><BR/>In meetings with Israeli officials recently, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was forceful in expressing Washington's view on the matter.<BR/><BR/>The American argument is that even "exploratory talks" would be considered a prize in Damascus, whose policy and actions continue to undermine Lebanon's sovereignty and the functioning of its government, while it also continues to stir unrest in Iraq, to the detriment of the U.S. presence there.</B><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.jnewswire.com/article/1694" REL="nofollow">Jerusalem News Wire - US says 'NO' to Israel-Syria peace talks</A><BR/><BR/><B>Israeli officials say that when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited this week, she forcefully demanded that Israel refrain from talking peace with Syria.</B><BR/><BR/>War, what's it good for?<BR/><BR/>PROFITS...Don Quijotehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03355584994080980478noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-49417121245773613132007-03-01T15:06:00.000-08:002007-03-01T15:06:00.000-08:00RM,I'm sorry. That was a big offer. Rejecting it i...RM,<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry. That was a big offer. Rejecting it is not SOP. And denying it after it has been revealed in no way protects those channels - they've already been revealed!<BR/><BR/>That rejection is unexplainable as simple bad judgment. To not begin negotiations on something of that scale goes well beyond simple bad judgment. Another NSC member took it seriously, forwarded it to both Powell and Rice. Powell rejected it as a non-starter with the Cabinet, and Rice swallowed it, and is lying about it after it's been revealed (not just before). One that, by itself, justifies an impeachment for incompetence.<BR/><BR/>What you're claiming is that Condi does not have the minimal judgment of a small businessman in negotiations. For that to be true, she'd have to be massively, colossally politically incompetent, yet still have risen to provost at Yale (and everyone knows what academic politics is like), still have fought her way into the Cabinet, still have managed to keep an exalted place in our political pantheon. Ockam's razor cuts both ways, you know.<BR/><BR/>I'm not claiming that this proves a conspiracy to bomb Iran; but it does suggest, at minimum, an attempt to cover up a colossal blunder by the boy-king and his advisors. <BR/><BR/>Additionally, we have to remember who Condi's mentor was: none other than Kissinger. So, a Nixon-to-China moment comes up, and Condi doesn't pass this by her old buddy, who happens to be also a presidential advisor? And he doesn't recognize the value of this? So, Kissinger is also a moron (and not solely evil)?<BR/><BR/>The incompetence explanation is looking awfully thin.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78496600841804208852007-03-01T14:43:00.000-08:002007-03-01T14:43:00.000-08:00Folks, please don't confuse bad judgment with a co...Folks, please don't confuse bad judgment with a conspiracy. Rejecting a back-channel diplomatic overture may or may not be stupid but its rejection hardly constitutes conspiracy. Furthermore, denying the existence of a back-channel overture is pretty much diplomatic SOP, in that it can be embarassing not only for you but for the government making the overture.<BR/><BR/>BTW, this site claims to have a copy of the text:<BR/><BR/>http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/1083/irans-march-2003-offerTheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-60079877925487304322007-03-01T12:56:00.000-08:002007-03-01T12:56:00.000-08:00MDW,Regarding conspiracies around the president, v...MDW,<BR/><BR/>Regarding conspiracies around the president, vs by the president: I'd agree the former is more likely. But the latter does happen, as evinced by Iran-Contra. Reagan was never caught, but I have never figured that he was a moron. The latter occurs because the President (as of yet) doesn't have his hands on all the levers of power, so some playing with the truth and a bit of secrecy works.<BR/><BR/>Kissinger might have been the brains behind Nixon, but Nixon was still involved with such beauties as the the secret wars in SE Asia (bombing Cambodia, etc - not classic conspiracies, but still secret and illegal). And we have the Gulf of Tonkin - now that was a classic conspiracy.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if there is a conspiracy now, all those guys were just amateurs in comparison.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1007111690216085942007-03-01T12:50:00.000-08:002007-03-01T12:50:00.000-08:00MDW,Recent Reuter's story:Ex-aide says Rice misled...MDW,<BR/><BR/>Recent Reuter's story:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN1433692720070215" REL="nofollow">Ex-aide says Rice misled Congress on Iran</A><BR/><BR/>She claims to not "recollect" the document in question, wherein Iran offers to stop supporting "anti-Israeli militants" and "accept Israel's right to exist."<BR/><BR/>Just slipped her mind, an offer to end 50 years of hostility. Yup, I believe it.<BR/><BR/>And for all the anti-semites (no one on this board, but fairly common among conspiracy buffs) who want to believe this is all a "PNAC" conspiracy or whatever, it's clear that it ain't Israel's interest that are being advanced.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-71738168521680218552007-03-01T12:37:00.000-08:002007-03-01T12:37:00.000-08:00RandomSequence:You've got a very good point about ...RandomSequence:<BR/><BR/>You've got a very good point about conspiracies actually happening. "Condi lied to Congress that she had never seen the offer; now she claim to 'not remember' the offer." I wasn't aware of this. That's beyond despicable, that's perjury and she ought to be impeached for it. Also, it's not explicable as stupidity.<BR/><BR/>I think conspiracies _surrounding_ a President have more plausibility in many cases than conspiracies _implicating_ a President, simply because the President has direct access to the reins of power and doesn't require secret manipulations to accomplish many goals. Anyway, keep making the case for Iran as you find new data. I'll be listening.<BR/><BR/>-M.D.W.B.C.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04048881524085910509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-15743710247554840082007-03-01T11:20:00.000-08:002007-03-01T11:20:00.000-08:00David, I admit that towering imbecility combined w...David, <BR/><EM>I admit that towering imbecility combined with doctrinaire monomania might explain how Condi turned her back on "Nixon-to-China."</EM><BR/><BR/>I won't admit that. Condi is not an imbecile. She may be a monomaniac, or a megalomaniac, but not an imbecile. She managed to work her way through academic politics to be provost at Yale (I believe that's the proper title there?). An imbecile can't do that; there's way too many high-quality (but often insane) brains in competition. <BR/><BR/>For the presidency, you can have a "brain" behind the figure-head, but I've never seen an example of that in academia - you have to at least be average among the faculty, or they'll revolt. Too many hurt egos if a moron is placed above them; they at least need to be able to believe that the boss is smart.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I was quite surprised to find a Russian radio interview with Condi - she took the questions in Russian but answered in English. One would expect that a top-ranking Sovietologist would speak a near-native Russian, wouldn't one?RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-48163299410169740102007-03-01T11:01:00.000-08:002007-03-01T11:01:00.000-08:00The relentless consistency of Condi's saber-rattli...The relentless consistency of Condi's saber-rattling... always timed perfectly to help the mullahs keep control and to minimize any possibility of encouraging liberalization in Iran, is well-documented and far too perfect not to be intentional.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the alternative approach of a "Nixon to China" was one that I suggested as long ago as 2001, in which Bush could have AT ONCE undermined all three of our middle eastern eanemies...<BR/><BR/>...the iranian mullahs, but overwhelming the Iranian people with kisses...<BR/><BR/>...a certain "house" ...<BR/><BR/>...and Saddam. By promising Iran to help free the southern shiites and the shiite holy sites, we'd have effective bottled Saddam into a narrow sunni heartland and would then be able to accepot defections from his generals... until one of them shot him.<BR/><BR/>All right, I admit that towering imbecility combined with doctrinaire monomania might explain how Condi turned her back on "Nixon-to-China." But please. Ponder how few men really have to be blackmail-suborned and flattered that they are part of a new world order of masters. As few as a dozen. <BR/><BR/>What is "convoluted" about deliberately repeating the only major mistake that America made, in 100 years? Diving into a motiveless land war of attrition in Asia?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-81947747286219152692007-03-01T09:52:00.000-08:002007-03-01T09:52:00.000-08:00Max & RM,I too leaned toward the stupidity scenari...Max & RM,<BR/><BR/>I too leaned toward the stupidity scenario for this administration. In most cases, that is the correct interpretation of monumental screw-ups. But, we have to assume that not all the cabinet is stupid - if that were so, they could not have stayed in power - someone has to mind the store.<BR/><BR/>But now, I've become more conspiratorial. That's not a dirty word - any review of history shows that many events are conspiracies. Any one who has run a business has either been involved in, or seen, a conspiracy, such as kickbacks to vendors, undermining of businesses by subordinates in league with competitors, etc. If you haven't seen it, rest assured that somebody is ripping you off. And there's no reason to believe that top level politicians are less conspiratorial - no, one would expect more.<BR/><BR/>In recent American history we have evidence of shocking attempts at conspiracy - Operation Northwoods in the JFK administration, where plans were developed to bomb an American civilian airliner and blame Cuba, Nixon's deal with Vietnam against LBJ, Reagan's possible deal with Iran against Carter, Reagan's definite Iran-Contra crimes, etc, and so on.<BR/><BR/>Now, the reason that I'm now more open to conspiratorial possibilities is the offer by Iran in 2003 via the Swiss to agree to most of our term in a private offer at normalizing relations. It was received and given to Condi, someone who is obviously not a moron. Whether the offer was in good faith or not, at minimum we should have opened immediate negotiations while we were assured an upper hand. Condi lied to Congress that she had never seen the offer; now she claim to "not remember" the offer.<BR/><BR/>How do you explain this? I find it hard to believe that it is monumental incompetence on Condi's part. At minimum, she is involved in a conspiracy to cover up a screw-up of historic proportions by the rest of the cabinet. At worst, we're looking at an intentional attempt to provoke war with Iran. Such a war would clearly not be in our national interest, or even most business interests. Yet we continue to hear the drumbeat of war, we continue to send warships into Persian Gulf, our soldier continue to die in the externally funded internecine war.<BR/><BR/>Iran is our natural ally against Al-Qaeda. They almost invaded Afghanistan in 99 (I believe that's the year) in an attempt to dislodge the Taliban. On the other hand, Pakistan's secret services has been known to fund the Taliban going back a decade, and to have been part of the interchange in funding the original set up of the Al-Qaeda predecessor by the US. Iran may produce a low-yield nuke in the next 10 years; Pakistan is known to have multiple nukes, and been part of an international mafia for nuclear proliferation, including to North Korea. Pakistan currently has a cease fire with the Taliban in Waziristan, from which they attack our soldiers in Afghanistan. And who are we threatening war against? Iran, who actually was instrumental in garnering agreement to the Afghani constitution, in alliance with the US. We returned that failure by labeling them part of the Axis of Evil™ (a suggestion by who? Condi Rice!)<BR/><BR/>So, mind-boggling incompetence, or conspiracy? The non-conspiracy argument doesn't have to be just incompetence, but a level of incompetence almost never seen by a government that manages to stay in power for an extended term. An incompetence that even Mugabe would find breath-taking. An incompetence that requires us to believe that our system is deeply broken, if such incompetence can continue for two administrations without redress.<BR/><BR/>We will see: a summit is finally occurring including all major players in the region surrounding Iraq. If a major agreement is reached, then obviously I must be wrong, or the major players have changed and the conspiracy is collapsed (making the point moot). But if this appears to just be cover for another intensification against Iran, I think incompetence is very difficult to assert.RandomSequencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12259854206507818658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-74750654298760794422007-03-01T09:17:00.000-08:002007-03-01T09:17:00.000-08:00Nate--Yeah, but the problem is that the bundlers a...Nate--<BR/><BR/>Yeah, but the problem is that the bundlers and PACs effectively launder the sources of the money, as far as FEC stats are concerned. However, I'm sure that that information is being provided to the candidates out-of-band by the bundlers/PACs.<BR/><BR/>Internet donations <$200 don't require disclosures, so you can't tell what the motivation of the donor is. Maybe that means, by definition, that there <I>is</I> no motivation, other than wanting the candidate to win.<BR/><BR/>Which brings up an interesting question: Does this hooray-for-our-side money really affect the candidate, other than the obvious enhancement to his campaign treasury? <I>Should</I> it affect the candidate? Industries clearly arbitrage their contributions to both sides to ensure access. Ideology-driven PACs and 527s bet big in one direction in the hopes of advancing their agenda. So both of these groups attach value to their ideas by putting a price tag on them.<BR/><BR/>Individuals really don't get to impart value to their agenda that way. I suspect that that means that, as long as two thirds of the money consists of these "monetized ideas," candidates completely ignore the individual donations. But look what would happen <I>without</I> the ability to monetize the ideas (as some of the more rabid finance-reform evangelists would advocate): the only source elected officials would have for clean ideas would be opinion polls. Personally, I'll take a cogent expression of interest by a lobbyist over a poll any day.TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55144300373811648942007-03-01T06:59:00.000-08:002007-03-01T06:59:00.000-08:00RM: Well, from the numbers I've seen, about a thir...RM: Well, from the numbers I've seen, about a third of the donations or so came from small donors, and about a third for bundlers, so that means about a third came from other things. I think Bush's broke down quite a bit more toward the bundlers, but he still had a noticeable amount of small donations. So it's a definite good start, if those trends continue. I don't know if anybody's compiled stuff from the 2006 Congressional races, that would be interesting. Still a long way to go, though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-51401289661007004442007-03-01T06:10:00.000-08:002007-03-01T06:10:00.000-08:00Anybody else having trouble embedding links? Ever...Anybody else having trouble embedding links? Everything looks fine in preview mode, then Blogger excises the text between the anchor tags and runs the hotspot all the way to the end of the post. It's happened to me twice now.<BR/><BR/>(The link above is to opensecrets.org, BTW.)TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-9699437207999373592007-03-01T06:05:00.000-08:002007-03-01T06:05:00.000-08:00David--"...hate-drenched, moronic, neo-feudal frat...David--<BR/><BR/><I>"...hate-drenched, moronic, neo-feudal frat-boy hypocrites. So? Is there not a point where it ceases to matter?</I><BR/><BR/>No, there is no such point, because one is a simple (albeit large) screwup and one is a concerted, conspiratorial attempt to degrade the system. I never bet against stupid.<BR/><BR/>On our old buddy Occam and the Manchurian Candidate Delusion: Nonsense! Even if I were to grant you the number of screwups that you allege (I don't--quite), you'd <I>still</I> have to construct this elaborate conspiratorial apparatus around the Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight to get anything close to getting the scenario to fit the known facts. Occam debrides that stuff away pretty efficiently.<BR/><BR/>--------------------<BR/><BR/>BTW, Nate: I looked at your cited Wapo article on the 2004 election, then started digging into the campaign finance stats. There's all sorts of stuff available on <A HREF="http://www.opensecrets.org" REL="nofollow"/> but the data are...weird. My main conclusion is that there are still lots of ways to game the FEC transparency regs. Bottom line, though: I retract any attempt to characterize Kerry's financing at this time. David, you can certainly make a case that this is yet another vast right-wing conspiracy; I suspect it's more likely that the FEC system is still a bit green, having been in place for only a couple of election cycles.TheRadicalModeratehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04671143818738683349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-47515294163403964112007-03-01T00:39:00.000-08:002007-03-01T00:39:00.000-08:00Dangit, by post got lost. Okay, shipping it back o...Dangit, by post got lost. Okay, shipping it back out there.<BR/><BR/>Nate mentioned the subject of the minimum wage, a pet peeve of mine. My problem with the minimum wage debate is not that a minimum wage is unnecessary, but that it should never be a NATIONAL minimum wage.<BR/><BR/>I'm a college student living in Moscow, Idaho and working at McDonalds. To make ends meet I have a food budget of $10 per week. My rent is $189 per month. Is there even a slim chance that someone in, say, New Jersey could do the same?<BR/><BR/>No freaking way.<BR/><BR/>Why then should I have the same minimum wage living here that someone in New Jersey should have? States can and do set their own minimum wages. Washington has a much higher one that Idaho, for example. Ideally, it would be set by County (because Boise is not the same as Moscow), but State at least isn't as moronic as National.sociotardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11697154298087412934noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91523034746890999332007-02-28T20:45:00.000-08:002007-02-28T20:45:00.000-08:00Max, forgive me. I am angry about what has been d...Max, forgive me. I am angry about what has been done to what was supposed to be "my" century. (In a sense.) As well as to my civilization.<BR/><BR/>Hence, even though I am one of the most prominent and outspoken proponents of distinguyishing between "good" and "bad" conservatives... I can fail to make it clear at times, and my ire toward the latter can spill onto the former.<BR/><BR/>Which is not to say that I have no anger toward you good conservatives! I do not at all retract the "ostrich" metaphor. And I will taunt you mercilessly over what I believe to be acts of rationalizing denial. Still, my chief point is to get you to face how unlike you are the horrors who have taken over your movement.<BR/><BR/>Finally, again, I OFFICIALLY DENY BELIEVING IN THE "MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE" SCENARIO.<BR/><BR/>I admit that it is less likely than the alternative, that we are led by towering, anencephalic, grabby, insatiable, sadistic, dogmatic, delusional, kleptocratic, hate-drenched, moronic, neo-feudal frat-boy hypocrites. So? Is there not a point where it ceases to matter?<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, the sheer absence ANYWHERE ELSE of menion of the Manchurian scenario justifies my mentioning it here. Because -- and let this sink in -- it fits Occam's Razor much better! Because moronic frat boys would have by now, at least once, have done something in the positive interest of the United States of America, if only by accident.<BR/><BR/>Either way - and with the credibility of a "libertarian-democrat" who has spoken well of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and Billy Graham -- there is no way I will withdraw the central monicker that I apply to these horrors.<BR/><BR/>Monsters.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com