Gawain

It says in the article. Didn't you read it? Of course I read it. I want to know what a mob of 500 needs protection from. I want to know why the police were aiding and abetting trespass. ...and harassment... ...and violation of local ordinance... ...all outside their jurisdiction.... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

It says in the article. Didn't you read it? Of course I read it. I want to know what a mob of 500 needs protection from. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

http://bigjournalism.com/acary/2010/05/21/d-c-metro-police-escorted-seiu-protesters-to-greg-baers-home/ This "exec" wasn't even a logical target (he's a lawyer, not a banker). This "exec" wasn't home, but his 14 year old son was. There were 500 of them. These protesters were clearly trespassing on private property. These protesters were violating Montgomery County ordinances by being stationary. What the F*CK WERE DC POLICE DOING ESCORTING THEM? So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

What's screwed up more than anything is that the Arizona law is actually stronger than the Federal precedent. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in Muehler v. Mena. http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1423 Under federal law, a federal officer can request validation of immigration status without any reason at all. Green Card holders are required to have their Green Card at all times and are required to produce it on demand from the authorities. The Arizona authorities do not have such leeway in their assessment. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Except that isn't how the contracts are awarded - something the Left conveniently forgets when they bitch about the 'military-industrial complex'. I was trying to be concise in a post that was getting really long. It's largely a matter of circular mutual back-scratching and influence peddling. The military contractors like Grumman, Northrop, etc., etc., regularly wine and dine senior officers. They also wine and dine - and are wined and dined by - Congress-slugs. Senior officers have the ear of Congress-slugs because Congress-slugs are bought & paid for with money from corporations, including a lot of military contractors. Influenced by this, Congress appropriates money for certain pet projects that are run by certain pet contractors. The senior officers then often retire and take jobs with military contractors, in which they lobby congress-critters as well as current senior military officers. Rinse, repeat. (And I'm still being way concise - it's a lot more involved than that.) Here's a nutshell description of the process. The rhetoric is overly-dramatic, but it's still pretty accurate. http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/02/17/washingtons-brassy-influence-peddlers/ No, it's actually not - not pretty accurate, that is. It's not some General saying "give Company XYZ the contract". There's (many!) regulations and oversight agencies that are involved at every step of the process. Once a contract is awarded, there's not any "pet projects" for Congress to appropriate money for. Do companies hire retired high-level officers to 'lobby' for them? Sure - just like the lawyer's union lobbied against tort reform in the healthcare bill. QFT The FARs are mountainous...all you need to do is check out FBO.gov to see the bureaucracy. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

My Two Feet - By Gawain... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Gimme a break. When someone criticizes Bush for groping Merkel, or stumbling over every word, you dismiss it as childish. Same thing here. One instance versus multiple...nope, a single breach of protocol is reasonably excusable. Multiple times it's not. When President Bush bowed to the Emperor of Japan, he didn't consider the fact that China would send him a messenger-boy at Copenhagen, where nothing got done. The actions have an effect, and it's certainly not childish. Taking a hard line towards Iran worked so well for Bush. It may have been stagnant with Iran, but we didn't alienate and push allies away in the process. They are? Hadn't heard that. Who are they proliferating to? http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/nk-fact-sheet.cfm http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_76.html http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/07/missiles_r_us_b.html It's no secret that DPRK sells a lot of weapons, to a lot of countries, especially missiles. Not sure why you don't like the START treaty. Do you feel it is necessary for us to be able to destroy the world five times over instead of just three? You do remember who was in charge when Russia invaded Georgia, don't you? Hint: it wasn't Obama. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/world/europe/09prexy.html So glad you think it's worth something. It is, to Russia. As for Georgia, please remember the sentiment that was noted at the time by then-candidate-Obama. A quick Google search will help you find the comparative remarks. Which one was on the side of the Georgians who were invaded? What would you have had us do? Seriously. If we had an intelligence apparatus that wasn't so gun shy, now that they think they'll be prosecuted for doing their job, they could have help to galvanize and organize the resistance against the mullahs and political leaders that are squandering that nation's talent. Good. They cause us no end of trouble. Right, because the only thriving democracy in the region, with Jews, Arabs and Palestinians all co-existing while getting missiles, bombs, et al thrown at it is just a nuisance? Started under Bush, many moons ago. And that excuses whom from what? Is there a treaty limitation to these commitments? They did just have a coup there, remember? Anyway, the last time I checked, US planes are still landing at Manas every day. That's fine with me that the planes are still landing there. What I don't like though is that we have not been a good steward of our relations. How is it that we managed to not position ourselves so that they would welcome a continued presence? You don't like the nomenclature? So what? It was never a war, anyway. You can't go to war against an idea. Yes you can. If you don't truly believe that, then you don't believe in what's taking hold in Iraq or what happened in Libya. I seem to remember there was a pretty successful attack on US soil during Bush's first term. Did you blame him for that one? Nope. There were significant changes to the intelligence apparatus after 9/11 that somehow managed to keep such attacks from happening for the following 8 years. Even then, Fort Hood? We can agree that the officer corps did too little to see the signs and too much in processing their own. Christmas Day? Let's see, the guy's dad had been waving down the State department for months. NYC/Times Square? Don't know enough about what's really happening, but the arrests are mounting, there seems to be little difficulty in tracking these guys. Do you honestly believe that NO ONE in the entire Administration has read the Arizona law? Come on, man. That's Rush and Beck talking out their ass. Not liking the law does not mean you haven't read it. And if you really think that the immigration issue would have been handled by a different President, you're just being naive. http://www.breitbart.tv/state-department-spokesman-critical-of-arizona-law-admits-he-too-hasnt-read-it/ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/13/holder_criticizes_arizona_immigration_law_he_hasnt_read.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/17/napolitano_admits_she_hasnt_read_arizona_law_but_says_she_wouldnt_sign_it.html Some pretty important people there that haven't read it...of course if they did, they would have real trouble perpetuating the lies they're spreading about it. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

12. 42! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Utter horseshit. Prove me wrong. We started this dance last year with a tour of apologies, declarations that America's founding principles aren't really relevant anymore, and that we would reach out a hand to collaborate on the world's problems. From Copenhagen to Iran to DPRK to Russia to China to Venezuela to Israel...show me the progress. Show me where America's interests have been represented. The return? Bowing to royalty we don't recognize, iPods to Queens, DVDs to foreign heads-of-government they can't play. Iran slapped the "open hand" and has endeared lynch-pin traditional allies of the US. DPRK is proliferating their technology. Russia has made Georgia ineffectual and tucked a little more of Ukraine under their thumb, while getting a sweet deal in an ineffective START treaty. We watched sparks of life in Iran's populace fizzle because we did nothing. Israel is very seriously considering their options without de facto US support. Members of NATO are foregoing their obligations under the treaty and their commitments in Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan wants the US out (while accepting Russia's continued presence)...it's only a vital staging point to Afghan operations. We no longer deal with "radical Islam" or a war (now overseas contingency operations). There have been one successful and two nearly successful terrorist attacks on our soil (counting the airborne Christmas flight). We continue to not secure our borders and how we have foreign heads of state, speaking on the floor in OUR CONGRESS, deriding our State's rights about a law that NO ONE in the ADMINISTRATION HAS READ. The list goes on, and on... Prove me wrong. If we had real leadership we could be doing more to complement Europe's efforts with Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. We could have closer ties with Brazil and Mexico and a free trade agreement with Colombia. We would be truly going arm-in-arm with Russia to bend Iran (China would follow). President Obama is firing the NDI due to the terror attack attempts, but what is our CIA/NSA/NRO/DIA going to do? The AG is looking at prosecuting them! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

It's been almost 30 years since I played that game! So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

On the whole I'd prefer the govt. to dump billions 3x trillions into the economy than a trillion into a war fought under false pretenses, or billions into bailing out rich bankers who brought us the recession in the first place. Afghanistan is part of that trillion...that was false? 9/11 and AQ didn't happen? I'll concede that Iraq was an "option", but in terms of return on investment, Afghanistan and Iraq are a bargain. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

As long as you have yours... its all good First - you know what I have, so why you would consider that "all good" is beyond me. The coverage is good, the price is cheap - the bureaucracy is stifling. Screwing 85% of the country for the 15% is not what many liberal minded folk would consider "fair". For me, the answer is not the creation of a massive new trillion dollar bureaucracy. Simple checks against a broader/loosened regulatory model could fix it - allowing for inter-state competition, catastrophic coverage only (just like auto-insurance) and malpractice reforms. But, a cloud of lawyers in DC know more than most of the country apparently. Back to the topic Jeane...do you really have an issue with his analysis? Are you comfortable with these developments in the impotence of our foreign policy? This isn't Chinese style pragmatism, it's white-flag-surrender. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Your selective quoting is so cute... Only after his utility bills were outed (and the guy that did had his life threatened by all manner of folks)...suddenly it's okay now. Fine by me. However, Gore didn't magically start talking about his BS in 2009... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

2/3 of the the budget to defense/military? Wrong. http://www.federalbudget.com/ Given the condition, quality and cost of other "comprehensive national health care service", I'm okay with the US not having one. The healthcare bill doesn't create one...right away...anyway... As to the evils of socialism, you are correct. Lengthening unemployment benefits removes the urgency to find/get/create a job. It took welfare reform in the 90s with a Republican Congress to truly reform welfare. ...and none of your points have anything to do with my original post, or the topic of Krauthammer's Op-Ed. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

You know this? How? Please give numbers. no. you know god damn well he uses far more energy than the average person by a large order of magnitude. if the man truly believed we were is a climate crisis he would live more like ed begley jr. The issue is how much NON RENEWABLE energy he uses, not how much total energy he uses. If he uses 100x your usage but it all comes from wind, solar or hydroelectric, he's doing a lot better than you. It was published a couple years ago that Gore's Nashville mansion uses an extraordinary amount of energy, and there wasn't much evidence that indicated it was "green"....just from the local utility (whoever it is in the Bell Meade area of Nashville). It's the same as you passing judgment on a guy you see driving a full sized SUV. You have no idea whether or not he uses all that space... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

If the DPRK collapses, I don't think China would tolerate being kept at arm's length. It's very much China's immediate back yard, as well as their long-term investment in blood and treasure; and they've got the power (military and economic) to stand their ground. All the more reason for ROK to be on the ready. Why they would accept anything other than reunification if DPRK collapses is something the world should support. DPRK is nothing more than a crumple zone for China. If China can live with Taiwan off its coast, then they can live with a unified Korea. The long term economic benefits would good for China too. Of course, walking on egg-shells with Kim Jong-Il won't help... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/20/AR2010052003885.html I saw a clip of him discussing this a couple days ago. The picture noted on the article was on the front page of the Wall Street Journal a couple days ago too. Two of our most important allies, in raised arms with Ahmadinejad of Iran. Of course, I understand, given how we treat our allies. It's okay though, we've apologized to everyone and I think the next step in our foreign relations is to apologize for things that might be done by someone else...just in case. The final paragraph sums it up: So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

That's assuming their army wouldn't starve to death in 72 hours and that the ROK army didn't blast every pass across the DMZ. I still believe the biggest threat to Seoul is all the artillery that's pointed at them. DPRK doesn't need to use a nuke to take out the city...several hundred salvos of conventional might do the trick. I tend to agree with this. The ROK won't go with military retaliation because even though they'd "win' in the long run, Seoul (and their economy) would almost assuredly be fucked. If, on the other hand, the DPRK decided to come across the border, I think they'd make some quick advances for about 72 hours but would then stall out. They'd be pushed back over the DMZ within a couple months and the DPRK would probably completely collapse shortly thereafter. As much as everyone is worried about a DPRK collapse, in the end, I truly think we need to be ready for a collapse regardless. South Korea needs to have their plans at the ready if DPRK implodes so that they can fill the gap/void quickly, and keeps China at an arm's length. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

That's assuming their army wouldn't starve to death in 72 hours and that the ROK army didn't blast every pass across the DMZ. I still believe the biggest threat to Seoul is all the artillery that's pointed at them. DPRK doesn't need to use a nuke to take out the city...several hundred salvos of conventional might do the trick. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

True, but Bush created fear which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people. Personally I'll take Gore's indescretions over Bush's indescretions. Gore is a private citizen making a buck for himself, don't think he is doing anything illegal. Morally questionable, maybe, but that describes a lot of CEOs and business owners (and politicians). I think the outrage has much more to do with political leanings of those being outraged than anything else. I stated my intentions, if you choose to call them into question, that's on you (and it's so cute to bring up the war in a thread about Al Gore's house). I'll take President Bush's character over Al Gore's any day. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

he's done extremely well for himself. A fine example of capitalism at work. It always amazes me thats staunch supporters of big business have such a hard time with Al Gore getting rich. Quite frankly, I wish I would have thought of it. Please note, I wasn't slamming his success. I was slamming his character. This is a guy spouting to anyone about the environment, and what "we all must do" to conserve and change our lifestyles. All this while his residence in Nashville consumes about 100x more resources than anything comparable in the state. He tops off this "success" in this fake market of carbon-credits by buying a 6 br, 9 bth, 6500 sq ft "getaway" in California. I'm glad Mr. Gore is doing so well. He's doing arguably better than President Clinton. His actions versus his rhetoric though... By contrast, the man that all liberal environmentalists love to hate, President Bush's ranch in Crawford is a truly an environmentally responsible property...on a scale that Al Gore has yet to touch. http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

I don't think that covers anything. If anything it puts LA at further exposure. 1. They don't run the plants. 2. They get some revenue from them. If things get nasty, then that's lost revenue for LA too... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

You must be referring to the new jobless claims... ...or Germany's ban on certain types of trading that is also jamming the market up... I don't catch much CNBC, but this is a left field take: http://www.cnbc.com/id/37233453 I understand the "need" for another collapse, but I don't understand his "adult" talk ... So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

Am I nuts or was peace never declared? The 1953 agreement is a cease fire, a truce, not a peace treaty or declaration of any end of hostilities. So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05/19/skorean-president-vows-stern-action-nkorea-sinking-warship/ The shit is hitting the fan over there. Today it was announced that it was a North Korean (Chinese built) torpedo that sunk the South Korean Navy ship. Response? So far, it sounds like a lot of "heated talk"...vows to take "swift and decisive measures" and "condemnation of such an act"... I know ROK has a difficult situation to measure. Seoul is well within rocket artillery range of DPRK on their side of the DMZ. Now that DPRK has nukes (deployed to any extent we don't know), what do we do. Unfortunately, I think the time for talking is over. China is not helping (either by direct counter-action or inaction). Do we just give up? I say the answer is no. I just hope that ROK chooses a stronger answer than I know we (the US) will. Everyone is worried about starting a war. My response is: 1. We did not start a war; 2. We are still technically at war; 3. If they are taking direct action already, then a de facto state of war already exists. What do you think? So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light!