But the Borders are Secure now.......... [Archive]

Ryan Cousineau

01-03-1970, 07:19 AM

In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:

> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <daveycrocket...@azurservers.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
> >> Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman
> >>
> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo
> >
> > But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
> > Qaida training camps.
> >
> > I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
> > to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
> > Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
> > you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
> > practice make perfect?
> >
> > And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
> > between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
> > falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?
> >
> > Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.
> >
>
> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
> what you just wrote.

Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Fred Fredburger

01-03-1970, 07:19 AM

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <daveycrocket...@azurservers.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
>>>> Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman
>>>>
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo
>>> But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
>>> Qaida training camps.
>>>
>>> I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
>>> to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
>>> Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
>>> you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
>>> practice make perfect?
>>>
>>> And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
>>> between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
>>> falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?
>>>
>>> Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.
>>>
>> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
>> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
>> what you just wrote.
>
> Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
> above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
the inference badly.

There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
evaluations run a very wide range. If you were a policy maker, how could
you make reasonable decisions? I don't think you could. I think you
might be reduced to gauging popular angst on the subject and responding
to that. Then next year, when popular angst died down or heated up
again, you'd be taken to task for last years' decisions. But, and here's
the unfortunate thing, neither this year nor next year would you be
making policy based upon a risk assessment. Just on popular opinion. So
you'd be a yo-yo or else very unpopular. Possibly both.

Maybe I'm wrong with that, maybe realistic assessments are available but
politicians follow public opinion regardless. Maybe the media finds
realistic risk assessments boring and therefore doesn't report them.

Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
a gauge of popular opinion.

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 07:19 AM

"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:rcousine-30A48F.08173103072007@news.telus.net...
> In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>> > On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <daveycrocket...@azurservers.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
>> >> Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman
>> >>
>> >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo
>> >
>> > But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
>> > Qaida training camps.
>> >
>> > I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
>> > to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
>> > Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
>> > you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
>> > practice make perfect?
>> >
>> > And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
>> > between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
>> > falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?
>> >
>> > Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.
>> >
>>
>> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
>> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
>> what you just wrote.
>
> Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
> above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.

Indeed! But the fact remains that we are making it extremely difficult for
Al Qaida and other terrorist organizations since they are running out of
volunteers to go to Iraq and kill themselves. Funny thing that when you
scream Allah Akbar! and nothing happens it becomes just another phrase.

Ryan Cousineau

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

In article <SI6dna7uoec87BfbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >
> >> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:

[Tom wrote something]

> >> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
> >> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
> >> what you just wrote.
> >
> > Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
> > above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.
>
> Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
> was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
> the inference badly.
>
> There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
> terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
> subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
> evaluations run a very wide range.

The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
when they're insuring you.

Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.

> Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
> the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
> interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
> a gauge of popular opinion.

The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
disruptions of the system.

Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

The problem for Al-Q is that they really needed to be able to do that
_again_, and very powerful forces are arrayed against them ever getting
that chance. Note that as time has passed, the successful Al-Q terror
attacks have been, in general, moving further from the USA and have been
diminished in sophistication, ambition, and deadliness. They've gone
from blowing up Manhattan towers to explosions in Spanish train stations
to failing to blow up London nightclubs.

I see no indication that they've started to like the USA more, though
maybe that's what we're seeing: Al-Q isn't an interesting cause anymore,
perhaps because the release of the Nintendo Wii has brought next-gen
gaming to a whole new group of people who could not afford a PS3 or XBox
360. Maybe most doctors figure that blowing up Glasgow airport isn't the
most reasonable way to end their medical career.

I don't know.

ObBike: last night I was riding my folding bike back from buying a
Squishee and a Buzz Cola at the Kwik-E-Mart when my rear tire exploded
like a bomb. I had to call my wife and get her to pick me up in the car.

What's really weird is that entire story is true,

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

On Jul 3, 8:56 am, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCin...@comcast.com>,
> > Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
> >> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <daveycrocket...@azurservers.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
> >>>> Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman
>
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo
> >>> But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
> >>> Qaida training camps.
>
> >>> I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
> >>> to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
> >>> Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
> >>> you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
> >>> practice make perfect?
>
> >>> And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
> >>> between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
> >>> falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?
>
> >>> Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.
>
> >> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
> >> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
> >> what you just wrote.
>
> > Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
> > above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.
>
> Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
> was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
> the inference badly.
>
> There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
> terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
> subjective. I can live with that.

That's right, and that's good, especially since you don't have a
choice.

http://www.mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp

And it isn't just about marketplace goods.

> What I find difficult is that those
> evaluations run a very wide range. If you were a policy maker, how could
> you make reasonable decisions? I don't think you could. I think you
> might be reduced to gauging popular angst on the subject and responding
> to that. Then next year, when popular angst died down or heated up
> again, you'd be taken to task for last years' decisions. But, and here's
> the unfortunate thing, neither this year nor next year would you be
> making policy based upon a risk assessment. Just on popular opinion. So
> you'd be a yo-yo or else very unpopular. Possibly both.

http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765800888/

Statism, the god that failed.

> Maybe I'm wrong with that, maybe realistic assessments are available but
> politicians follow public opinion regardless. Maybe the media finds
> realistic risk assessments boring and therefore doesn't report them.

To the degree they claim realism, maybe we can have some moneyback
guarantees. "We" always like a good bang for "our" buck.

"Every theory must ultimately meet two tests: one, that of internal
consistency, the other that of consistency with reality." -- Frank
Fetter, stating the obvious.

> Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
> the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
> interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
> a gauge of popular opinion.

You could go simple on the explication of evaluation. Ask him what it
means to "need" a 12t.

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
news:SI6dna7uoec87BfbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
> terrorist attack?

By the disruptions of the system. Tell me, just how many 9-11's do you
propose that the economy can handle?

> Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated the
> risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be interesting
> to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as a gauge of
> popular opinion.

Are you suggesting that I've felt unsafe due to terrorist attacks? That is
rather foolish if that is what you believe.

While some people no doubt have fear for their own lives terrorism is about
disruption of an orderly system. And the orderlyness of that system supports
300,000,000 people in this country.

Tell me, how would you like your assets to suddenly equal zero? How close to
retirement are you? In a a world without technology, without transportation
and without distribution systems what are your personal chances at a future?

If you don't understand the goals of terrorism what are you talking about?

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

On Jul 3, 3:46 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> In article <SI6dna7uoec87BfbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnn...@comcast.com>,
> Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
> > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCin...@comcast.com>,
> > > Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
> > >> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [Tom wrote something]
>
> > >> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
> > >> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
> > >> what you just wrote.
>
> > > Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
> > > above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.
>
> > Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
> > was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
> > the inference badly.
>
> > There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
> > terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
> > subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
> > evaluations run a very wide range.
>
> The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
> historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
> when they're insuring you.

If you knew what was going to happen to you, you would not buy
insurance. You buy because of uncertainty -- a lack of objective
valuation. Of course, one makes certain decisions on "how much to
buy" and of "what form," but those are mere traces/shadows of
objectivity in a sea of subjectivity.

> Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
> Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
> Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.

In rbr, numbers are facts. Please provide an ordinal rating so anyone
can easily corrupt them to cardinal. Thanks.

> > Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
> > the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
> > interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
> > a gauge of popular opinion.
>
> The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
> can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
> disruptions of the system.

It is about power.

> Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
> critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

Dumbass, it, like everything, influenced the course of history, which
can't be changed. There is only one path. The mystical "could have
been" will never be. The "change" was permanent. Are you a
determinist or a free willer?

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

On Jul 3, 3:46 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
> historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
> when they're insuring you.
>
> Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
> Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
> Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.
>
> The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
> can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
> disruptions of the system.
>
> Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
> critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

Dumbass,

I agree with your evaluation of the risk from terror
attacks, but I disagree on the goal of terrorism.
It is not sabotage (critical disruptions of the system).
It is to induce fear. That's why they call it terrorism.

Knocking down the WTC (which arguably Osama wasn't even
counting on doing) and taking out a small piece of
the Pentagon was not a critical disruption of the
system. There were a lot of casualties and a colossal
mess, but later that day, everybody outside several
blocks of the WTC had water, food, power, a working
phone line, and so on. The next day everyone could have
gone to work, shopped, and traded stocks or watched
football if the stock exchange and the NFL hadn't
closed out of sensitivity, or whatever, just not
flown anywhere. The only thing really disrupted was
aviation.

The biggest disruption to the US and its economy was
presumably that everybody spent the next few days in a
trance talking about it at work, watching CNN, or
at home with the covers over their heads, rather than
being a good worker bee. I'm not blaming anybody; that
was the right thing to do. (I was out of the country on
a remote mountaintop at Tora Bora^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H working
and am guessing at what y'all did.)

I'm sure there are people in AQ who think they can
bring the infrastructure of Western Civilization[tm]
to its knees with enough bombs and chemicals and what
not, but cleverer terrorists realize that their goal
is to discomfit the civilian population. The British
are used to this from the IRA days. Their experience
and the fact that the recent bomb attempts didn't hurt
anyone is one reason they are responding in a
relatively measured way, I think.

The only thing we have to fear is fear itself, as
Greg White's favorite President said. I make fun
of the "If X, the terrorists win" slogan, but I
actually believe that it's partly true: if we change
our society or trample our laws in the name of
security, the terrorists win.

Ben

Fred Fredburger

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> In article <SI6dna7uoec87BfbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>>>
>>>> cyclintom@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [Tom wrote something]
>
>>>> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
>>>> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
>>>> what you just wrote.
>>> Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
>>> above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.
>> Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
>> was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
>> the inference badly.
>>
>> There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
>> terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
>> subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
>> evaluations run a very wide range.
>
> The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
> historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
> when they're insuring you.
>
> Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
> Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
> Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.

Oddly, we all act as though that last part isn't true but the first one
is a BIG threat.
>
>> Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
>> the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
>> interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
>> a gauge of popular opinion.
>
> The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
> can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
> disruptions of the system.
>
> Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
> critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

Yes, exactly. This is the problem with comparing 9/11 and the number
killed with New Orleans or a tsunami or something. Emotionally, 9/11 was
far more disruptive to a much larger number of people. That might be
irrational, but calling it names doesn't change it.

>
> The problem for Al-Q is that they really needed to be able to do that
> _again_, and very powerful forces are arrayed against them ever getting
> that chance. Note that as time has passed, the successful Al-Q terror
> attacks have been, in general, moving further from the USA and have been
> diminished in sophistication, ambition, and deadliness. They've gone
> from blowing up Manhattan towers to explosions in Spanish train stations
> to failing to blow up London nightclubs.
>
> I see no indication that they've started to like the USA more, though
> maybe that's what we're seeing: Al-Q isn't an interesting cause anymore,
> perhaps because the release of the Nintendo Wii has brought next-gen
> gaming to a whole new group of people who could not afford a PS3 or XBox
> 360. Maybe most doctors figure that blowing up Glasgow airport isn't the
> most reasonable way to end their medical career.

It's been said that invading Iraq has increased Al-Q recruitment 10
fold. That could be true for a particular type of recruit. Young, angry,
bitter, disaffected young men mostly. It's a useful group if you want to
send them to a market in Baghdad to detonate their exploding vest but
not so useful if you want to send someone to the US and fit in
nondescriptly for a couple years while learning to do something
complicated like fly a plane.

>
> I don't know.
>
> ObBike: last night I was riding my folding bike back from buying a
> Squishee and a Buzz Cola at the Kwik-E-Mart when my rear tire exploded
> like a bomb. I had to call my wife and get her to pick me up in the car.
>
> What's really weird is that entire story is true,
>

My ObBike story is less fun. I was playing race Marshal at a crit this
morning. An older guy, dirty, black, walked by and asked me a bit about
the bike race. He'd taken about 2 steps after talking to me when 2
bicycle mounted cops swooped down, had him sit down on a park bench and
accused him of having shoplifted something. When he asked "From where?"
He was told "From 2 or 3 places." They radioed his data in and found out
he's a local resident, 45 and has no arrest record at all. They let him
go. The weird part: this was at 8 am on the 4th of July. None of the
stores were even open yet. At the risk of empathizing with the bad
guys, I'm damned glad I'm not a cop. How do tell the good guys from the
bad ones?

Fred Fredburger

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Jul 3, 8:56 am, Fred Fredburger
> <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>> In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCin...@comcast.com>,
>>> Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>>>> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 2, 9:58 pm, Davey Crockett <daveycrocket...@azurservers.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Watch five Wetbacks jump the fence as Bush spouts Bull**** about how
>>>>>> Secure the Border is for a TV Cameraman
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPA75H5uVIo
>>>>> But remember that France is simply letting them in direct from Al
>>>>> Qaida training camps.
>>>>> I do find it somewhat humorous that the news services are attempting
>>>>> to imply that the bombers in Great Britain and Scotland aren't Al
>>>>> Qaida because they weren't all that professional. To listen to them
>>>>> you'd have to wonder how professional a suicide bomber can be. Does
>>>>> practice make perfect?
>>>>> And do you notice how they're strictly avoiding making the connection
>>>>> between all of the Al Qaida chiefs killed or in custody and the
>>>>> falling "professionalism" of the terrorist attacts?
>>>>> Good thing we have the American media to keep us so well informed.
>>>> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
>>>> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
>>>> what you just wrote.
>>> Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
>>> above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.
>> Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
>> was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
>> the inference badly.
>>
>> There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
>> terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
>> subjective. I can live with that.
>
> That's right, and that's good, especially since you don't have a
> choice.
>
> http://www.mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp
>
> And it isn't just about marketplace goods.

Yes, just like that.

>
>> What I find difficult is that those
>> evaluations run a very wide range. If you were a policy maker, how could
>> you make reasonable decisions? I don't think you could. I think you
>> might be reduced to gauging popular angst on the subject and responding
>> to that. Then next year, when popular angst died down or heated up
>> again, you'd be taken to task for last years' decisions. But, and here's
>> the unfortunate thing, neither this year nor next year would you be
>> making policy based upon a risk assessment. Just on popular opinion. So
>> you'd be a yo-yo or else very unpopular. Possibly both.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765800888/
>
> Statism, the god that failed.

Years ago, when I was in college, I read everything that Ayn Rand wrote.
Twice. Pretty much everyone I knew thought I was eccentric or crazy or
something. A couple years ago, I picked up a copy of "Atlas Shrugged"
again, read it a bit, and decided they were all correct.

Leaving aside the repetitive, soapboxy, elitist nature of Ayn Rand's
novels, I always found her critique of statism compelling but her
alternative (almost-but-not-quite anarchy) a bit less than compelling.

So I agree with your assessment of statism but don't see a ready
alternative . Darn!

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>> Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
>> critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> The "change" was permanent. Are you a determinist or a free willer?

Depends on how drunk he is.

Fred Fredburger

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> On Jul 3, 3:46 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>> In article <SI6dna7uoec87BfbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnn...@comcast.com>,
>> Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>>
>>> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
>>>> In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCin...@comcast.com>,
>>>> Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>>>>> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> [Tom wrote something]
>>
>>>>> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
>>>>> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
>>>>> what you just wrote.
>>>> Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
>>>> above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.
>>> Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
>>> was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
>>> the inference badly.
>>> There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
>>> terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
>>> subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
>>> evaluations run a very wide range.
>> The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
>> historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
>> when they're insuring you.
>
> If you knew what was going to happen to you, you would not buy
> insurance. You buy because of uncertainty -- a lack of objective
> valuation. Of course, one makes certain decisions on "how much to
> buy" and of "what form," but those are mere traces/shadows of
> objectivity in a sea of subjectivity.

Right. Absolutely correct. We can extend this far beyond the concept of
risk if we choose, I'm convinced that most objective information is just
a thin veneer over the top of subjective opinions or emotion. We like to
think not but.

There was a Donald Rumsfeld quote that was thrown around a couple years
ago and widely laughed at. "...there are known knowns; there are things
we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say
we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know." Rumsfeld was merely
acknowledging a truth that many are uncomfortable with.

>
>> Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
>> Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
>> Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.
>
> In rbr, numbers are facts. Please provide an ordinal rating so anyone
> can easily corrupt them to cardinal. Thanks.

True in life as well. Walk into a meeting at work with a several pages
of spreadsheets and charts. You can say anything you want to and get
away with so long as you keep pointing at the spreadsheets and keep a
straight face. I can't do this, but I've seen it done to great effect.

Ryan Cousineau

01-03-1970, 07:20 AM

In article <1183513687.955755.303930@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups. com>,
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

> On Jul 3, 3:46 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > In article <SI6dna7uoec87BfbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnn...@comcast.com>,
> > Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >
> > > Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> > > > In article <OPadnXnt2oSL_BfbnZ2dnUVZ_sCin...@comcast.com>,
> > > > Fred Fredburger <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> >
> > > >> cyclin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > [Tom wrote something]
> >
> > > >> I'm curious ... is it your opinion that we are now safe from meaningful
> > > >> attack by Al Qaida? You didn't say that, but it could be inferred from
> > > >> what you just wrote.
> >
> > > > Well, it can be inferred that we are "safer" from Tom's statements
> > > > above, but "safe" is, logically speaking, putting words in his mouth.
> >
> > > Sure, that's why I asked for his evaluation of the risk and noted that I
> > > was running the risk of making an invalid inference. Or perhaps phrasing
> > > the inference badly.
> >
> > > There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
> > > terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
> > > subjective. I can live with that. What I find difficult is that those
> > > evaluations run a very wide range.
> >
> > The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
> > historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
> > when they're insuring you.
>
> If you knew what was going to happen to you, you would not buy
> insurance. You buy because of uncertainty -- a lack of objective
> valuation. Of course, one makes certain decisions on "how much to
> buy" and of "what form," but those are mere traces/shadows of
> objectivity in a sea of subjectivity.

Well, most insurers (and wise insurees) define insurance as a means of
risk pooling.

Essentially, we buy insurance because we face a small risk of a
crippling disaster, which is virtually always expressed financially. But
the important thing is that the risk be quantifiable.

So you and I know that most people's houses don't burn down, but roughly
x houses burn down every year, and if your house burned down, the
experience would be financially life-changing.

So you buy insurance, where the monthly payments roughly amount to the
Expected Value of your financial risk of your house burning down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value

When the insurers get their guesses right, and roughly the expected
number of insured houses burn down, everybody's happy. When they guess
low, people get very unhappy.

Insurers spend a lot of money on getting their guesses right.

So you don't know if your house will burn down, but you effectively have
a good idea of what the chance your house will burn down is.

It's like playing the slots: you don't know what the next spin will
bring, but you shouldn't like your odds.

> > Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
> > Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
> > Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.
>
> In rbr, numbers are facts. Please provide an ordinal rating so anyone
> can easily corrupt them to cardinal. Thanks.

I thought I did. Here's the ordinal rating of risk, from highest to
lowest:

1) death
2) vehicular fatality
3) death by LIVEDRUNK
4) death by snoo-snoo
5) death by terror

Risk #3 is totally worth it.

> > > Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated
> > > the risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be
> > > interesting to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as
> > > a gauge of popular opinion.
> >
> > The problem is that terrorism isn't so much about raw deaths (even Nazis
> > can't kill that fast, as Benjamin Franklin once said) as about critical
> > disruptions of the system.
>
> It is about power.
>
> > Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
> > critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.
>
> Dumbass, it, like everything, influenced the course of history, which
> can't be changed. There is only one path. The mystical "could have
> been" will never be. The "change" was permanent. Are you a
> determinist or a free willer?

Single predestination only.

But more to the point, the bad guys wanted to express an ability to
dictate global policy.

They almost made it! I think they grossly misunderstood the effects
their act would have. I very much doubt they supposed, for example, it
would lead to the whirlwind destruction of the Taliban regime in
Afghanistan.

Had the terrorists been able to follow up with further effective
attacks, they might have proved their point. It's very easy to imagine
that a few more bombs going off on American soil might have driven the
US into an isolationist mood (Buchanan 2004, anyone?). But it never
happened. They managed a big bang in Spain, which probably toppled a
US-friendly government in favour of a left-leaning one, and that was it.
The bombs in London in 2005 killed 52, two orders of magnitude fewer
than the deaths in 9/11. It was followed less than a month later by a
series of damp squib explosions in London, which resulted in no deaths
other than the extraordinarily unfortunate Mr. de Menezes, who was
killed by overzealous cops.

Then we have the bombings of last weekend, which were comically
incompetent. A cleverer man than I would make a wry joke about the idea
that doctors could be trusted to create a safe doping regimen, when they
apparently can't even be trusted to properly blow up a car bomb.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2007/07/that-didnt-go-s.html

Now, a few serious bombs might change my tune overnight, but so far six
further years of presumably vigorous attempts at terrorism (longer than
that, if you count back, quite credibly, to something like the first WTC
bombing attempts...) have demonstrated that Al-Q's attempt to bring
America to its way of thinking have had all the fearsome staying power
of O-Town.

ObBike: I should be building some bicycles.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Howard Kveck

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

In article <468b5788$0$14798$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> >> Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
> >> critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.
>
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
> > The "change" was permanent. Are you a determinist or a free willer?
>
> Depends on how drunk he is.

Did he say something about a free Willier?

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

On Jul 4, 2:41 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
wrote:

> ... if we change
> our society or trample our laws in the name of
> security, the terrorists win.

"We" -- reasonable and responsible individuals -- largely obey the
rules of conduct of a given society; that is why the society works, or
even becomes what could be called a society. "We" mostly leave it to
rulers to trample laws and rules of conduct.

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

<bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
news:1183542081.955801.204180@k29g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
>
> If we change our society or trample our laws in
> the name of security, the terrorists win.

That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.

Fred Fredburger

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
> news:SI6dna7uoec87BfbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
>> terrorist attack?
>
> By the disruptions of the system. Tell me, just how many 9-11's do you
> propose that the economy can handle?

I think the economy weathered the first 9/11 better than did the
collective American psyche, but it's certainly not good for the economy
either.

>
>> Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated the
>> risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be interesting
>> to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as a gauge of
>> popular opinion.
>
> Are you suggesting that I've felt unsafe due to terrorist attacks? That is
> rather foolish if that is what you believe.
>
> While some people no doubt have fear for their own lives terrorism is about
> disruption of an orderly system. And the orderlyness of that system supports
> 300,000,000 people in this country.

I agree with both of the things you've just said. I was using the word
"secure" to mean the opposite of fearful.

>
> Tell me, how would you like your assets to suddenly equal zero? How close to
> retirement are you? In a a world without technology, without transportation
> and without distribution systems what are your personal chances at a future?
>
> If you don't understand the goals of terrorism what are you talking about?

I wasn't arguing with you or suggesting that you're wrong. I just
wondered if you felt less fear of terrorism now than you did a year or 2
ago. Your earlier post suggested that you might. I'm pretty sure that
there IS no right or wrong answer to some of these things.

Bill C

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

On Jul 4, 10:17 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
>
> news:SI6dna7uoec87BfbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>
>
> > There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
> > terrorist attack?
>
> By the disruptions of the system. Tell me, just how many 9-11's do you
> propose that the economy can handle?
>
> > Now to circle back, since I believe Tom to historically have evaluated the
> > risk posed by Al Qaida to be higher than I have, it would be interesting
> > to know if Tom is now feeling more secure than he used to as a gauge of
> > popular opinion.
>
> Are you suggesting that I've felt unsafe due to terrorist attacks? That is
> rather foolish if that is what you believe.
>
> While some people no doubt have fear for their own lives terrorism is about
> disruption of an orderly system. And the orderlyness of that system supports
> 300,000,000 people in this country.
>
> Tell me, how would you like your assets to suddenly equal zero? How close to
> retirement are you? In a a world without technology, without transportation
> and without distribution systems what are your personal chances at a future?
>
> If you don't understand the goals of terrorism what are you talking about?

Hey we've been barking up the wrong tree for years now. The terrorists
aren't Muslims or Islamic:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12172/Brown:-Don

Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word "Muslim" in *
connection with the *terrorism crisis.

The Prime Minister has also instructed his team - including new Home
Secretary Jacqui Smith - that the phrase "war on *terror" is to be
dropped.

The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations
and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more "consensual" tone than
existed under Tony Blair.

Damn I just KNEW that it was really the Eskimo Liberation Army behind
it all!
Bill C

Wanna bet Britain starts paying off the terrorists to stop the
attacks like Italy has done?

Bill C

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

On Jul 4, 10:23 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>
> news:1183542081.955801.204180@k29g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
>
>
>
> > If we change our society or trample our laws in
> > the name of security, the terrorists win.
>
> That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
> trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.

or maybe the millions, possibly billions that his, and every other
politicians, corporate friends and donors are making by paying **** to
illegal aliens. Putting greed and profit ahead of the good of the
country and it's people is an old political tradition.
Bill C

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
> trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.

Dumbass,
Thats where the **** that will kill them is coming from. If you're in the
right place at the right time you can get some (for your dog or horse of
course).

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> writes:

> On Jul 4, 10:23 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>> <b...@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1183542081.955801.204180@k29g2000hsd.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > If we change our society or trample our laws in
>> > the name of security, the terrorists win.
>>
>> That must be why Bush is leaving the borders open and allowing Mexican
>> trucks to drive through boarder stations without stopping.
>
> or maybe the millions, possibly billions that his, and every other
> politicians, corporate friends and donors are making by paying **** to
> illegal aliens. Putting greed and profit ahead of the good of the
> country and it's people is an old political tradition.
> Bill C
>

Well Secretary, Michael (Cry me a River) Chertoff says he can't nail
down the Borders because a bunch of Wankerz in the Senate nixed the
"Amnesty Bill"

But he would like to thank the following group of Traitors for their
support:

Akaka (D-HI)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Craig (R-ID)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
Just remember: Government works on the principle of doing what makes
the least sense

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 07:21 AM

Bill C

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

On Jul 4, 3:03 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
>
>
> > The easiest way to evaluate the risk of terror attacks is to look at the
> > historical record, which is pretty much how actuaries like to study risk
> > when they're insuring you.
>
> > Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
> > Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
> > Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.
>
> Oddly, we all act as though that last part isn't true but the first one
> is a BIG threat.

I think that's because for most of us life has become much safer,
with better medical care, and a longer life expectancy. A couple
generations ago getting killed or maimed on the job was a pretty real,
and regular occurrence. They had been through at least one real brutal
war with huge casualties and a nasty worldwide depression where the
basic needs were never a sure thing.
Today it's easier so we whine and cringe over things they would have
never even given a twitch about.
>
>
>
>
> > Knocking down the two tallest towers in the USA with airliners was a
> > critical disruption. It just wasn't permanent.
>
> Yes, exactly. This is the problem with comparing 9/11 and the number
> killed with New Orleans or a tsunami or something. Emotionally, 9/11 was
> far more disruptive to a much larger number of people. That might be
> irrational, but calling it names doesn't change it.
>
Same thing again. There was no real, serious damage or threat to the
Nation as a whole, but since we've had a free and safe existence this
caused massive emotional reaction way out of proportion to the actual
damage.

>
> My ObBike story is less fun. I was playing race Marshal at a crit this
> morning. An older guy, dirty, black, walked by and asked me a bit about
> the bike race. He'd taken about 2 steps after talking to me when 2
> bicycle mounted cops swooped down, had him sit down on a park bench and
> accused him of having shoplifted something. When he asked "From where?"
> He was told "From 2 or 3 places." They radioed his data in and found out
> he's a local resident, 45 and has no arrest record at all. They let him
> go. The weird part: this was at 8 am on the 4th of July. None of the
> stores were even open yet. At the risk of empathizing with the bad
> guys, I'm damned glad I'm not a cop. How do tell the good guys from the
> bad ones?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Being a good, honest cop has to be about the toughest job out there.
I'm sure in a lot of small towns and cities it's not too bad yet, but
it's damned near impossible in most places though.
Here where I live I have no idea how they do the really good job they
do. Everyone is an activist with civil rights lawyers on speed dial.
There is little to no respect for them, and they are fair game pretty
much in any brawl or domestic dispute. The judges here tend to view
cops being assaulted as part of the job and do little to nothing to
those who attack them while protecting the hell out of the attackers.
Several of our judges have a real dislike bordering on hate for the
cops. Unfortunately in the last year I've spent a ton of time sitting
in court with other people watching this stuff and it was eye opening
to say the least. The amazing part is that our PD is incredibly
sensitive to PC concerns, is very diverse, and does a ton of outreach
stuff, but they are still treated like crap for the most part. The
real negative for Joe Officer on the street is that in 95% of the
cases and complaints they are going to get thrown to the wolves by
their Chief and Mayor on top of everything else. Kinda like racers
they are guilty until proven innocent by their own leaders.
Bill C

Howard Kveck

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

In article <k5Cdnd5pLc6VchbbnZ2dnUVZ_oupnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Fred Fredburger <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:

> It's been said that invading Iraq has increased Al-Q recruitment 10
> fold. That could be true for a particular type of recruit. Young, angry,
> bitter, disaffected young men mostly. It's a useful group if you want to
> send them to a market in Baghdad to detonate their exploding vest but
> not so useful if you want to send someone to the US and fit in
> nondescriptly for a couple years while learning to do something
> complicated like fly a plane.

While the flying planes into buildings maneuver will likely be a one time thing,
there are other things that terrorists can do that will accomplish the same ends
(disrupting our way of life via people being, well, terrrorized). They don't
necessarily have to be suicide bomber related things, either. Something (or some
things) like what happened in Oklahoma City, for example. In addition to your comment
about AQ having increased recruitment due to Iraq, it's worth noting that Iraq seems
to have been turned into a big practice center, where they hone their skills on
things like IEDs. But this becomes more important when you consider that there is
credible evidence that people who have been involved in those activities are leaving
Iraq, slipping out in the exodus of citizens who are leaving Iraq.

A lot of what they're doing depends on citizens in the areas they are targetting
behaving in a certain way: being terrorized makes them willing to alter the way they
go about their daily lives and more willing to give up certain freedoms in a quest
for "security" from unseen enemies. On that count, I'd say that AQ did a pretty good
job with the help of an administration that was perfectly willing to exploit those
fears to get to do some things that are considered beyond the pale, such as US
citizens being arrested and held on the say-so of the president or spying on US
citizens with no judicial oversight.

And the administration continues to try to equate the terrorists who attacked us
on 9-11 with Iraq. Today, Bush said in a speech that the people we're fighting in
Iraq are al Qaeda, "the same people who attacked us on that fateful day." I did
notice that he neglected to mention the report that came out of the Pentagon last
week that said al Qaeda had no significant presense in Iraq before the war. Surprise.
For a few weeks, all of the info coming from US military press briefers has labeled
the combatants in every incident in Iraq as "al Qaeda" in spite of the fact that
there are a tiny number of true AQ fighters there and the overwhelming number of
people doing the fighting are homegrown militiamen or insurgents.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Tom Kunich

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

"Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
news:7Z6dnUO3t8UUbxbbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> I wasn't arguing with you or suggesting that you're wrong. I just wondered
> if you felt less fear of terrorism now than you did a year or 2 ago. Your
> earlier post suggested that you might. I'm pretty sure that there IS no
> right or wrong answer to some of these things.

Bush did one thing right - he took out Saddam Hussein. Everything else
connected with the war has been a complete and utter screw-up.

I really don't want to get into the strategy and tactics of dealing with
powers in the middle east but the fact is that they all now know that they
cannot win EVER.

And so I suppose that does make me feel a bit safer. Unless the politicians
throw it all away.

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> writes:

>
> Hey we've been barking up the wrong tree for years now. The terrorists
> aren't Muslims or Islamic:
>
> http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12172/Brown:-Don
>
> Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word "Muslim" in *
> connection with the *terrorism crisis.
>
> The Prime Minister has also instructed his team - including new Home
> Secretary Jacqui Smith - that the phrase "war on *terror" is to be
> dropped.
>
> The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations
> and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more "consensual" tone than
> existed under Tony Blair.
>
> Damn I just KNEW that it was really the Eskimo Liberation Army behind
> it all!
> Bill C
>
> Wanna bet Britain starts paying off the terrorists to stop the
> attacks like Italy has done?
>

Yes, I saw that one

It seems that 1984 has finally arrived in Bliar/Brown's Third World
Britain

And after only a few days in office, he's already Gerrymandering to
try and scrape up a few more Labour seats in the next Local Council
elections

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
SOS - HMS Britannia
http://azurservers.com/rbr/sos.wmv

Bill C

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

On Jul 4, 6:55 pm, Davey Crockett <daveycrocket...@azurservers.com>
wrote:
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> writes:
>
> > Hey we've been barking up the wrong tree for years now. The terrorists
> > aren't Muslims or Islamic:
>
> >http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/12172/Brown:-Don
>
> > Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word "Muslim" in *
> > connection with the *terrorism crisis.
>
> > The Prime Minister has also instructed his team - including new Home
> > Secretary Jacqui Smith - that the phrase "war on *terror" is to be
> > dropped.
>
> > The shake-up is part of a fresh attempt to improve community relations
> > and avoid offending Muslims, adopting a more "consensual" tone than
> > existed under Tony Blair.
>
> > Damn I just KNEW that it was really the Eskimo Liberation Army behind
> > it all!
> > Bill C
>
> > Wanna bet Britain starts paying off the terrorists to stop the
> > attacks like Italy has done?
>
> Yes, I saw that one
>
> It seems that 1984 has finally arrived in Bliar/Brown's Third World
> Britain
>
> And after only a few days in office, he's already Gerrymandering to
> try and scrape up a few more Labour seats in the next Local Council
> elections
>
> --
> Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
> -
> SOS - HMS Britanniahttp://azurservers.com/rbr/sos.wmv- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Here's a good read on the subject of free speech:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/827vslni.asp

Endangered Salman
>From London to Cairo, free speech is under assault.
by Paul Marshall
07/09/2007, Volume 012, Issue 40

Bill C

RonSonic

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 17:23:57 -0700, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:

>>
>> In rbr, numbers are facts. Please provide an ordinal rating so anyone
>> can easily corrupt them to cardinal. Thanks.
>
>True in life as well. Walk into a meeting at work with a several pages
>of spreadsheets and charts. You can say anything you want to and get
>away with so long as you keep pointing at the spreadsheets and keep a
>straight face. I can't do this, but I've seen it done to great effect.

This fellow has mastered it. I want to find him and put him to work on the
commercial sale of my inventions.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5125780462773187994

Ron

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

Fred Fredburger wrote:
> True in life as well. Walk into a meeting at work with a several pages
> of spreadsheets and charts. You can say anything you want to and get
> away with so long as you keep pointing at the spreadsheets and keep a
> straight face. I can't do this, but I've seen it done to great effect.

Apparently that works at the UN too.

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

On Jul 4, 5:38 pm, Fred Fredburger
<FredFredbur...@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote:
> SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:
>
> >> There's a general question here: how does one evaluate the risk of a
> >> terrorist attack? The problem, as I see it, is that all evaluations are
> >> subjective. I can live with that.
>
> > That's right, and that's good, especially since you don't have a
> > choice.
>
> >http://www.mises.org/austecon/chap4.asp
>
> > And it isn't just about marketplace goods.
>
> Yes, just like that.

On an what probably seems an obscure side note, and having some
relation to the article's content, I don't agree with "the austrians"
on "indifference." I think "they" are wrong on a technical basis. I
don't know why they make such a big deal about it. Practically
speaking, I don't think it matters that they are wrong on the
particular point.

> > Statism, the god that failed.
>
> Years ago, when I was in college, I read everything that Ayn Rand wrote.
> Twice. Pretty much everyone I knew thought I was eccentric or crazy or
> something. A couple years ago, I picked up a copy of "Atlas Shrugged"
> again, read it a bit, and decided they were all correct.
>
> Leaving aside the repetitive, soapboxy, elitist nature of Ayn Rand's
> novels, I always found her critique of statism compelling but her
> alternative (almost-but-not-quite anarchy) a bit less than compelling.

I've never read Rand. Since I'm a subjectivist, "objectivism" seems a
lttle dubious, if the title means what it looks like it means. I
don't see humans, and the societies they form, as "objective."
Ironically, commies *and* randians apparently do see these affairs as
objective.

I would call what I have seen of objectivist theory to be hyper-
rationalism. It ascribes a very high degree of rationalism to nearly
all human behavior/action. I see an element of human ability as
rational/reasonable, but it is only one element among more. While the
capability of reasoning is an extraordinary capability, and certainly
defining humans as uniquely special in that way, I think it only plays
a part. I suspect a lot of what humans do is based on meme,
mechanical rudiment, emotion, instinct, and so on. The
extraordinariness of rationality, and that what it ultimately
produces, I think tends to overweight it in the minds of some
evaluators as to its influence on (w)holistic human conduct.

I don't believe the everyday ("regular") conduct of humans has the
degree of rationalist influence that objectivists ascribe to it (as I
have irregularly read objectivist articles). The general following
of the social rules of conduct are perhaps as "instinctive" (meme) to
a human as a robin building a nest. Those who severely violate the
social rules of conduct either punctuate the equilibria of the society
they live in, or they end up in prison, or a mental institution, or
duck hunting with Cheney. This said, I also agree with a lot of (the
little of) what I've read from randians too.

To reinforce, all this has the caveat that I am not studied in
objectivism.

> So I agree with your assessment of statism but don't see a ready
> alternative . Darn!

I am so disappointed by the historical record I would give un-statism
a chance.

Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse, --
Peter T. Leeson
http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 07:22 AM

Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net> writes:

>>
>> > Wanna bet Britain starts paying off the terrorists to stop the
>> > attacks like Italy has done?
>>
>> Yes, I saw that one
>>
>> It seems that 1984 has finally arrived in Bliar/Brown's Third World
>> Britain
>>
>> And after only a few days in office, he's already Gerrymandering to
>> try and scrape up a few more Labour seats in the next Local Council
>> elections
>>
>> --
>> Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
>> -
>> SOS - HMS Britanniahttp://azurservers.com/rbr/sos.wmv- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Here's a good read on the subject of free speech:
>
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/827vslni.asp
>
> Endangered Salman
>>From London to Cairo, free speech is under assault.
> by Paul Marshall
> 07/09/2007, Volume 012, Issue 40
>

Governments in all of the Formerly Civilized Former Nations are
desperate for votes to stay in Power to peddle their New World Order
Horse****.

And to do that they are avoiding "alienating" the Sons of the Prophet
since they've let Muslims over-run their countries to the extent that
these Aliens are now a significant Voting Block.

It's about Politics, Bill, not about Free Speech, because as anyone
with half a brain knows, there is no Freedom of Speech left in the
Formerly Civilized Former Nations not even the USA where the Peons
mostly believe that the First Amendment to the Constitution gives them
that Right. But last I read it, the First Amendment quaranteed
Doodley-Wop. It merely prohibits the Govenment from Legislating
against certain Freedoms.

"Congress shall make no law .... abridging the freedom of speech"

There are dozens of schemes to work around that little Gem as Geordie
Bush has discovered.

Perhaps the Sheeple should pay more attention to the Preamble and
(sic) Defend the First Amendment with the Second as the original
Draughtsmen, who didn't give a **** about Democracy, but who valued
Freedom greatly, intended. Democracy in any instance is Mob Rule.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and
organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely
to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate
that Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that
mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than
to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And as for Rushdie, I don't give a Monkey's Toss for either him or his
writings although he's in good Company with his Knight Batchelor award
from Little Libby
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgè-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
masquerading as Lizzie Windsor** who's bestowed the same award on sundry
Political Hacks, Faggots and Paedophiles.

** A double Pretender since in the first instance, Henry VII was
bastard and not qualified to be King and notwithstanding The House
of Tudor taking England's throne through victory at the Battle of
Bosworth in 1485, the Plantagenet line was UnBroken. And in fact
remains so to this day from Geoffrey Plantagenet, called Geoffrey
The FAIR, French Geoffroi Plantagenet, or Geoffroi le Bel, born
Aug. 24, 1113 to King Fulk of Jerusalem and his wife Bertrada, on
down with the Rightful King of England actually living in OZ,

And secondly the Hannoverians were an imported bunch of ScallyWags
and Mercenaries from which, one way or another, Little Libby has
devolved.

Gee, if only Olly Cromwell hadn't been such a God Freak and Absolute
Wanker, we'd probably still have a Republic in England.

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

On Jul 4, 7:51 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> In article <1183513687.955755.303...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups. com>,
> SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:

> > Are you a determinist or a free willer?
>
> Single predestination only.

"I have no choice but to to treat all my concerns and actions as a
matter of choice." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

"<insert phoney quote>" -- Ben Franklin, 1759

"That was only funny the first thousand times." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

"That was never funny." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

SLAVE of THE STATE

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

> Essentially, we buy insurance because we face
> a small risk of a crippling disaster, which is
> virtually always expressed financially.

I agree that it "ought" to be that. Diverting further and further,
that doesn't describe what people call "health insurance." "Health
insurance" has now become nearly synonymous with "health care." I
regularly hear people use the terms in an overlapping manner. I don't
get it.

> But the important thing is that the risk be quantifiable.

Purchasers or suppliers? I really don't believe purchasers do much
more than qualititive guesses. They don't have the time or resources
-- that is why they are buying in the first place. Even liability
coverage is based on the crude (and subjective) value of the insured's
cassets. There is no such thing as an "average" individual.

> So you buy insurance, where the monthly payments
> roughly amount to the Expected Value of your financial
> risk of your house burning down.

No profit for the insurers? Heck, I guess I don't want to go into
that business.

> > Risk of dying of a terror attack: not much.
> > Risk of dying in a vehicular fatality: not insignificant!
> > Risk of dying: in the long run, we are all dead.
>
> > In rbr, numbers are facts. Please provide an
> > ordinal rating so anyone can easily corrupt
> > them to cardinal. Thanks.
>
> I thought I did. Here's the ordinal rating of risk,
> from highest to lowest:
>
> 1) death
> 2) vehicular fatality
> 3) death by LIVEDRUNK
> 4) death by snoo-snoo
> 5) death by terror
>
> Risk #3 is totally worth it.

lol. Okay, I see the objective value of your list is 15.

> I think they grossly misunderstood the effects
> their act would have.

This is a general trait of rulers, or wannabe rulers. Talk about
something that can be predicted and estimated. We know that one
pretty well, or we ought to.

I am coming to appreciate the wisdom of Judge Dondo. Any rulers who
make mistakes should be forced to go duck hunting with Cheney. We'll
clone Cheney for Cheney's punishment. Now we have two Cheney's!!!???
Argh. He is diabolical.

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

Ryan Cousineau wrote:
> I thought I did. Here's the ordinal rating of risk, from highest to
> lowest:
>
> 1) death
> 2) vehicular fatality
> 3) death by LIVEDRUNK
> 4) death by snoo-snoo
> 5) death by terror
>
> Risk #3 is totally worth it.

Personally I prefer #4. Vastly preferable to drowning in your own vomit.

And speaking of undignified deaths, surely the Elvis death by constipation
method must rank somewhere up there given the dietary habits of the
average western supersizer.

rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

On Jul 5, 4:51 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:

> So you buy insurance, where the monthly payments roughly amount to the
> Expected Value of your financial risk of your house burning down. [...]
> Insurers spend a lot of money on getting their guesses right.

The explanation you've just given is the explanation the insurance
companies want you to believe. It's about as realistic a description
of the insurance industry as "How a bill becomes law" is of a
legislature.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

On Jul 4, 7:51 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:

> So you buy insurance, where the monthly payments roughly amount to the
> Expected Value of your financial risk of your house burning down.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expected_value
>
> When the insurers get their guesses right, and roughly the expected
> number of insured houses burn down, everybody's happy. When they guess
> low, people get very unhappy.
> Insurers spend a lot of money on getting their guesses right.

The great thing about this is that if not enough houses
burn down, it's always possible to go out and burn down
a few more at the end of the month to meet quota and keep
everybody happy.

Ben
RBR Insurance Adjuster

And if too many houses flood in Katrina, you can always
say "We don't cover wind damage."

Ryan Cousineau

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

In article <1183613175.207864.79790@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
rechungREMOVETHIS@gmail.com wrote:

> On Jul 5, 4:51 am, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > So you buy insurance, where the monthly payments roughly amount to the
> > Expected Value of your financial risk of your house burning down. [...]
> > Insurers spend a lot of money on getting their guesses right.
>
> The explanation you've just given is the explanation the insurance
> companies want you to believe. It's about as realistic a description
> of the insurance industry as "How a bill becomes law" is of a
> legislature.

Really? Because I didn't want to explain float, reinsurance, or the
various ways insurers screw this model up (most commonly by exposing
themselves to risk as a means of pretending they can cut prices to gain
market share). I think the model at least explains why a consumer should
buy insurance, even if it doesn't explain why insurers want to be in the
business :).

I also am a big believer in not having too much insurance. If my $10000
car gets stolen, well, I can get by with a $2000 car for quite some
time. So insuring that car is a bit of a mug's game.

Why, what were you thinking of?

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos

Fred Fredburger

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

Howard Kveck wrote:

> A lot of what they're doing depends on citizens in the areas they are targetting
> behaving in a certain way: being terrorized makes them willing to alter the way they
> go about their daily lives and more willing to give up certain freedoms in a quest
> for "security" from unseen enemies. On that count, I'd say that AQ did a pretty good
> job with the help of an administration that was perfectly willing to exploit those
> fears to get to do some things that are considered beyond the pale, such as US
> citizens being arrested and held on the say-so of the president or spying on US
> citizens with no judicial oversight.

For this to persist requires the continuance of that level of fear that
alters behavior and increases willingness to surrender freedom. And we
have short memories. I'm not sure when 9/11 will recede far enough into
the past for the new "normal" level of insecurity to be established but
thusfar the fear has steadily lessened. Without something a hell of a
lot scarier than putting nails in your car and setting it on fire, it
will continue to do so. That's good because some of these extraordinary
measures run counter to our ideals. A reduction in the circumstances
that allow them is desirable.

And I'm just talking about the US here. Selfishly, perhaps, because
that's where I live.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

On Jul 4, 11:35 pm, Howard Kveck <YOURhow...@h-SHOESbomb.com> wrote:

> And the administration continues to try to equate the terrorists who attacked us
> on 9-11 with Iraq. Today, Bush said in a speech that the people we're fighting in
> Iraq are al Qaeda, "the same people who attacked us on that fateful day." I did
> notice that he neglected to mention the report that came out of the Pentagon last
> week that said al Qaeda had no significant presense in Iraq before the war. Surprise.

What fateful day? Maybe he was talking about July 4,
not 9/11. He could have been referring to the original
July 4, on which a band of ragtag insurgents attempted
to declare asymmetric warfare against the rightful and
divinely inspired unitary executive.

Ben

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

I wrote:

> What fateful day? Maybe he was talking about July 4,
> not 9/11. He could have been referring to the original
> July 4, on which a band of ragtag insurgents attempted
> to declare asymmetric warfare against the rightful and
> divinely inspired unitary executive.

Whaddaya know, apparently Gen. Sir Michael Rose reads RBR:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/opinion/05rose.html

"Unfortunately for Britain, he [George III] attempted to
fight a conventional war against insurgents, and sent far
too few troops across the Atlantic to accomplish the mission.
Although they initially took New York and Philadelphia, the
British subsequently failed to adjust to a counterinsurgency
strategy against the "war of the posts" that George Washington
adopted after his defeat at Germantown, Pa., in October 1777.
... [The British Army] soon came to be regarded as a foreign
occupation force."

IMO, Gen. Rose didn't really do so well in Bosnia,
but he didn't completely cock up a war, so I guess he
has a right to give advice.

Ben

Michael Press

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

In article <873b039ty6.fsf@azurservers.com>,
Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrockett@azurservers.com>
wrote:

> And as for Rushdie, I don't give a Monkey's Toss for either him or his
> writings although he's in good Company with his Knight Batchelor award
> from Little Libby
> Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgè-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
> masquerading as Lizzie Windsor** who's bestowed the same award on sundry
> Political Hacks, Faggots and Paedophiles.
>
> ** A double Pretender since in the first instance, Henry VII was
> bastard and not qualified to be King and notwithstanding The House
> of Tudor taking England's throne through victory at the Battle of
> Bosworth in 1485, the Plantagenet line was UnBroken. And in fact
> remains so to this day from Geoffrey Plantagenet, called Geoffrey
> The FAIR, French Geoffroi Plantagenet, or Geoffroi le Bel, born
> Aug. 24, 1113 to King Fulk of Jerusalem and his wife Bertrada, on
> down with the Rightful King of England actually living in OZ,
>
> And secondly the Hannoverians were an imported bunch of ScallyWags
> and Mercenaries from which, one way or another, Little Libby has
> devolved.
>
> Gee, if only Olly Cromwell hadn't been such a God Freak and Absolute
> Wanker, we'd probably still have a Republic in England.

Yes to all that. Nevertheless the Plantagenet were usurpers too,
and Cromwell. As I said recently, we had MacBeth and Julius Caesar
in secondary school in the good ole USA. Those two gems
spell out the nature and origin of political power to the young.

--
Michael Press

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

Davey Crockett wrote:
> Gee, if only Olly Cromwell hadn't been such a God Freak and Absolute
> Wanker, we'd probably still have a Republic in England.

Well if he'd followed the methodology the French invented a few years
later and lopped off their heads you would have a Republic in England and
the Sex Pistols would have had one less hit.

Michael Press

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

In article
<468cccaa$0$14782$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Fred Fredburger wrote:
> > True in life as well. Walk into a meeting at work with a several pages
> > of spreadsheets and charts. You can say anything you want to and get
> > away with so long as you keep pointing at the spreadsheets and keep a
> > straight face. I can't do this, but I've seen it done to great effect.
>
> Apparently that works at the UN too.

That is for the audience. Back-handers is the name of the game.

--
Michael Press

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> writes:

> Davey Crockett wrote:
>> Gee, if only Olly Cromwell hadn't been such a God Freak and Absolute
>> Wanker, we'd probably still have a Republic in England.
>
> Well if he'd followed the methodology the French invented a few years
> later and lopped off their heads you would have a Republic in England and
> the Sex Pistols would have had one less hit.
>

Well old Olly did in fact Whack Charly Boy, but his mistake was in not
Whacking the whole nest of Stuart Vipers

But even the French gave monarchs another go before finally deciding
thay were parasites and not worth the trouble

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity
and a blind desire for safety and security.

Howard Kveck

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

In article <1183650758.559859.18820@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.c om>,
SLAVE of THE STATE <gwhite@ti.com> wrote:

> On Jul 4, 7:51 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > In article <1183513687.955755.303...@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups. com>,
> > SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
>
> > > Are you a determinist or a free willer?
> >
> > Single predestination only.
>
> "I have no choice but to to treat all my concerns and actions as a
> matter of choice." -- Ben Franklin, 1759
>
>
>
> "<insert phoney quote>" -- Ben Franklin, 1759
>
> "That was only funny the first thousand times." -- Ben Franklin, 1759
>
> "That was never funny." -- Ben Franklin, 1759

You know, funny or not, it's part of the RBR style manual, so it can never be
changed. (Having said that, I do get a laugh out of it anyway.)

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:

> In article <873b039ty6.fsf@azurservers.com>,
> Davey Crockett <d4Qaveycrockett@azurservers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> And as for Rushdie, I don't give a Monkey's Toss for either him or his
>> writings although he's in good Company with his Knight Batchelor award
>> from Little Libby
>> Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburgè-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
>> masquerading as Lizzie Windsor** who's bestowed the same award on sundry
>> Political Hacks, Faggots and Paedophiles.
>>
>> ** A double Pretender since in the first instance, Henry VII was
>> bastard and not qualified to be King and notwithstanding The House
>> of Tudor taking England's throne through victory at the Battle of
>> Bosworth in 1485, the Plantagenet line was UnBroken. And in fact
>> remains so to this day from Geoffrey Plantagenet, called Geoffrey
>> The FAIR, French Geoffroi Plantagenet, or Geoffroi le Bel, born
>> Aug. 24, 1113 to King Fulk of Jerusalem and his wife Bertrada, on
>> down with the Rightful King of England actually living in OZ,
>>
>> And secondly the Hannoverians were an imported bunch of ScallyWags
>> and Mercenaries from which, one way or another, Little Libby has
>> devolved.
>>
>> Gee, if only Olly Cromwell hadn't been such a God Freak and Absolute
>> Wanker, we'd probably still have a Republic in England.
>
> Yes to all that. Nevertheless the Plantagenet were usurpers too,
> and Cromwell. As I said recently, we had MacBeth and Julius Caesar
> in secondary school in the good ole USA. Those two gems
> spell out the nature and origin of political power to the young.
>

Well the last of the Norman kings, Stephen was a Weak Willed Wanker
and allowed the Norman Barons to loot the Country and the Plantagenets
or Angevins came in on the aftermath.

But you are right. Royalty is a Bunch of Opportunists and as Vicious
and Treacherous today as ever they were. And as Brainless too. Just
look at that Prince Charlie in England who put up with that Air Headed
Flibberty-Gibbert Diana although I must admit that his second wife,
Camilla, seems to be a really Level Headed lady.

Now Davey's not a Conspiracy Theorist, but he can well imagine old
Flying Phil, the Duke of Edinburgh sitting in his club with the head
of MI6 saying "We have a little Family Problem, Know what I mean? Yes,
Right. Can you help us?" - Problem solved - Exit Diana!!

As for the Norman lot, this was the average Englishman's opinion of
them, William the Conqueror in Particular:

BILLY THE BASTARD

Oh, the minstrels sing
Of an English King
Of many long years ago,
Who ruled that land
With an iron hand
Though his morals were weak and low.
His only outer garment was a dirty yellow shirt
With which he tried
To hide his hide,
But could not hide the dirt.

He was dirty and filthy and full of fleas
But he had his women by twos and threes;
God bless the bastard king of England.

Now the Queen of Spain
Was an amorous dame;
And Horny ***** was she,
And loved to fool
With the Royal Tool
When on the Royal Knee.
So she sent a secret message via royal messenger
To invite the king
To an all-night fling
Playing Hide the Weenie with her.

He was smelly and lousy and full of fleas
But his manly tool hung down to his knees;
God bless the bastard king of England.

Well, when Philip of France,
Heard that by chance
He swore before his court,
"The Queen, by God,
Prefers that Sod
Because I'm rather short."
So he sent the Duke of Suffering Sap
To give the queen a dose of Clap
And pass it on to the Bastard King of England

He was fat and gamey and full of fleas
But well endowed and eager to please;
God bless the bastard king of England!

When the King of England heard the news
He cursed this Gallic farce;
He up and swore,
"By the royal whore,
I'll have King Philip's arse!"
He offered half the royal purse
And a piece of Princess Claire
To any British subject who'd
Undo Philip the Fair.

He was pale and paunchy and full of fleas
But could spread a maid with practised ease;
God bless the bastard king of England!

The Duke of Northumberland
Jumped on his horse
And straightaway rode to France.
He claimed to be a Fairy,
And the king let drop his pants.
Then he slipped a stout thong
Around Philip's schlong
Lept on his horse and galloped along
And dragged the Frenchman back
To Merry Old England.

He was rank and stank and full of fleas
But a king can indulge in his lecheries;
God bless the bastard king of England!

When the King of England saw the sight
He fell in a faint to the floor,
For during the ride
His rival's Pride
Had stretched a yard or more.
And all the whores
In their silken drawers
Came down to London Town
And shouted round the battlements,
"To Hell with the British Crown!"
So Philip alone
Usurped the throne;
His scepter was his royal bone
With which he ditched
The bastard king of England.

He was dirty and filthy and full of fleas
But he had his women by twos and threes;
God bless the bastard king of England.

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
Like the Russkie said of the two leading Soviet Papers:
"There ain't no pravada in Izvestia
and there ain't no isvestia in Pravda"
Pravda = Truth
Izvestia = News

Donald Munro

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

Michael Press wrote:
> As I said recently, we had MacBeth and Julius Caesar
> in secondary school in the good ole USA. Those two gems
> spell out the nature and origin of political power to the young.

You're not suggesting Hillary is a witch (or anything that rhymes with
witch) ?

Fred Fredburger

01-03-1970, 07:23 AM

SLAVE of THE STATE wrote:

> I've never read Rand. Since I'm a subjectivist, "objectivism" seems a
> lttle dubious, if the title means what it looks like it means. I
> don't see humans, and the societies they form, as "objective."
> Ironically, commies *and* randians apparently do see these affairs as
> objective.
>
> I would call what I have seen of objectivist theory to be hyper-
> rationalism. It ascribes a very high degree of rationalism to nearly
> all human behavior/action.

Absolutely. That's my objection as well. If you get into her essays, she
limits the role of gov't to ensuring that citizens don't infringe on the
rights of other citizens. In other words, the only legitimate purpose
for gov't, in her view, is to provide a police force and court system.
If the citizens think nat'l defense is important, they'll donate to the
DoD of their choice. If roads need to be built, they'll pass the hat to
pay for it.

Not the human beings I know!

> I see an element of human ability as
> rational/reasonable, but it is only one element among more. While the
> capability of reasoning is an extraordinary capability, and certainly
> defining humans as uniquely special in that way, I think it only plays
> a part. I suspect a lot of what humans do is based on meme,
> mechanical rudiment, emotion, instinct, and so on. The
> extraordinariness of rationality, and that what it ultimately
> produces, I think tends to overweight it in the minds of some
> evaluators as to its influence on (w)holistic human conduct.
>
> I don't believe the everyday ("regular") conduct of humans has the
> degree of rationalist influence that objectivists ascribe to it (as I
> have irregularly read objectivist articles). The general following
> of the social rules of conduct are perhaps as "instinctive" (meme) to
> a human as a robin building a nest. Those who severely violate the
> social rules of conduct either punctuate the equilibria of the society
> they live in, or they end up in prison, or a mental institution, or
> duck hunting with Cheney. This said, I also agree with a lot of (the
> little of) what I've read from randians too.
>
> To reinforce, all this has the caveat that I am not studied in
> objectivism.

I've only read Rand and some of Alan Greenspan's stuff from the 60's,
but everything you've said is consistent with that. And they DO make a
lot of sense when critiquing statism or collectivism.

>
>> So I agree with your assessment of statism but don't see a ready
>> alternative . Darn!
>
> I am so disappointed by the historical record I would give un-statism
> a chance.
>
> Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse, --
> Peter T. Leeson
> http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
>

That paper is just amazing. But it doesn't actually convince me of the
benefits of anarchy except in extreme cases. Anarchy DOES present an
easy answer as to the proper role of government. All other attempts at
anti-statist gov't have to answer the question of the limits of gov't in
a way that people will support. That's hard because people end up
agreeing on so little, for one thing. So we end up with no limits to
state power or no state at all.

Michael Press

01-03-1970, 07:24 AM

In article
<468d3d86$0$14785$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > As I said recently, we had MacBeth and Julius Caesar
> > in secondary school in the good ole USA. Those two gems
> > spell out the nature and origin of political power to the young.
>
> You're not suggesting Hillary is a witch (or anything that rhymes with
> witch) ?

No, only that she has a dog named Spot.

--
Michael Press

Davey Crockett

01-03-1970, 07:24 AM

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> writes:

> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
> news:7Z6dnUO3t8UUbxbbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>
>> I wasn't arguing with you or suggesting that you're wrong. I just wondered
>> if you felt less fear of terrorism now than you did a year or 2 ago. Your
>> earlier post suggested that you might. I'm pretty sure that there IS no
>> right or wrong answer to some of these things.
>
> Bush did one thing right - he took out Saddam Hussein. Everything else
> connected with the war has been a complete and utter screw-up.
>
>

Woweee, taking out Saddam was the DUMBEST thing Georgie Porgie ever
did in his Sorry Life

Firstly, Saddam had beeen a Good Loyal Friend to the US for close on
40 years and in my Books, turning on your Friends simply Ain't White,
especially when they've recently fought a Seven Year War for you
against the Persians.

Secondly, with not even a Meagre One Per Cent of the Money, Manpower
and Means available to Yankee-Doodle, he did what the Americans appear
totally unable to do. Namely he kept the Lid firmly on that Basket of
Vipers in Mesopotamia, which is no Mean Feat as anybody other than the
Megalomaniac Bush must admit.

And Sure he Whacked a few Revolutionary Dissidents here and
there. But, unfortunately, that's the way things are done in that part
of the World. Saddam was no better or worse than any of his neighbours
in that regard and in actual fact Saddam whacked fewer people in his
whole career than have starred in the Friday Morning Chop Square Soap
Operas across the Muslim World in the last Couple of Years.

He was no real threat to Anyone

Saddam wanted only to Stay in Power and Stay Alive. The two being
synonymous to him.

Nor was he the Tyrant domestically that Propaganda has Painted
him. Iraq was the Shining Star and Hope for the Future of the Middle
East and contrary to what the Propaganda Mills turn out, he was quite
popular in Iraq. He achieved this by running a Secular State in which
the Mullahs, Immams and Other Witch Doctors had strictly limited
powers. Women could Drive Cars in Iraq, they could Smoke, Marry
whomever they liked, carry their Shopping Bags over their Arm instead
of over their Head, and even Peddle their Ass if the Spirit Moved them
without being Stoned to Death. Allegiances were therefor towards
Saddam rather than to the Witch Doctors.

Just don't believe all the Propaganda that gets pitched in your
direction about what a Tyrant Saddam was.

Furthermore, at least Saddam was a Man which is something that Sorry
Piece of **** with the Idiots Smirk on his Ugly Mug will never be.

Did you see him go? That was a man in my Books. With Bush and Bliar's
Hooded Executioners Snapping at his Neck and Barking like the Hounds
of Hell he Calmly turned and told them "You're not Men" at which they
started chanting the name of their Pissant Immam, Muqtada al Sadr, but
old Saddam Sneered Back,"Muqtada?" And he had every right to sneer too
because Saddam had whacked that Nasty Piece of **** Muqtada Sr and he
would have Whacked Muqtada Jr too if he could have got his hands on
him but Jr was too scared to show his Fat, Ugly Paedophile Face until
Saddam was safely in Custody.

The rats even pulled the lever before Saddam had recited the Shahada
twice as is required by Law. (There is no god but God and Mohammad is
his Messenger........)

And throughout the whole Ordeal, Saddam never Flinched, not even
once. That's a man in Davey's Books

So don't you worry about old Saddam. He's where the Real Men Go. Where
Pancho Villa went, and Von Richtofen and Patton.

And as for the Middle East, Sixty years ago the USA didn't have a
single Enemy in the region; now they don't have a single Friend.

Nice going Yankee-Doodle. Great Foreign Policy

--
Davey Crockett - No 4Q to Reply
-
BBC Finally admits it
Al Quaeda == Al-CIA-da
http://mathaba.net/rss/?x=556855

Fred Fredburger

01-03-1970, 07:24 AM

Tom Kunich wrote:
> "Fred Fredburger" <FredFredburger@WhereAreTheNachos.huh> wrote in message
> news:7Z6dnUO3t8UUbxbbnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>> I wasn't arguing with you or suggesting that you're wrong. I just wondered
>> if you felt less fear of terrorism now than you did a year or 2 ago. Your
>> earlier post suggested that you might. I'm pretty sure that there IS no
>> right or wrong answer to some of these things.
>
> Bush did one thing right - he took out Saddam Hussein. Everything else
> connected with the war has been a complete and utter screw-up.
>
> I really don't want to get into the strategy and tactics of dealing with
> powers in the middle east but the fact is that they all now know that they
> cannot win EVER.
>
> And so I suppose that does make me feel a bit safer. Unless the politicians
> throw it all away.

Fair enough.

Things will never return to the pre 9/11 ways, but I think people are
slowly adapting to the changes. They are generally not as frightened as
they were. There are a couple of things lately that have given some
cause for optimism. It's probably not exactly right to feel more secure
based upon the ineptitude of the recent UK terrorists. On the other
hand, as you pointed out, one could also view that as the result of the
disruption of Al-Q and the lack of effective direction/money that's
caused. It's reasonable to believe that OBL et. al. are too busy running
from cave to cave to effectively run a global terror network.