And pardon me if I can't help but wonder how the aforesaid chiefs would compare their present certainty regarding imminent terrorism with the unshakable conviction held by the second Bush Administration that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction? Weapons, I might add, that were never found in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of that country.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
I Have Just a Few Questions?
The headline of the CNN news report says something different than that which is contained in the report at the link. So, forgive me if I'm just a bit puzzled regarding assertions by our nation's intelligence chiefs that a domestic terror attempt, (which is it, an attack, or an attempt, and how, precisely, are those terms defined?) presumably launched by foreign enemies, is certain to occur in the coming (unspecified number of) months.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Thanks for commenting. Can you translate?
They know because they are orchestrating the false-flag operations themselves and intend to expand the War to Pakistan and Yemen. Mak'tub. And so it goes...
I can't help but wonder how the aforesaid chiefs would compare their present certainty regarding imminent terrorism with the unshakable conviction held by the second Bush Administration that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction
I'm sure they'd sputter some kind of ineffectual response. However, the vague proclamation of an imminent attack itself is a carbon copy of the same tripe we heard from the Bush admin.
Indeed it is, Bush. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Speaking of which, I hope The Who, in a bit of messaging to the masses, play that one at half time
of the Super Bowl.
Won't Get Fooled Again, that is.
Of course the totalitarian minimalist practicalist side of me might suggest we solve all this broohaha by simply taking a cue from the British health care system's utilitarian solution to this issue. Why don't we decide decide:
A. What the price of life is worth?
B. Come up with a model that predicts the odds of a terrorist attack?
C Further model the cost of property damage such an attach would cost?
D. Further model the amount of life the attack with take and how much that will cost via model A.
Then we can model
1. How much we can spend
2. All the different ways we can spend it
And then we can decide on the best solution to this quandary.
After all, future results are always predicted on past performance.
Solving this contentious issue to the point we all cooperate should be easy ;-)
So I get your reply; I forgot to check the "email follow up comments" box.
Which comment are you referring to Thai?
I was giving the chiefs a solution to their apparent paradox.
Of course I doubt they will take me up on it.
Yet in the end, who gives them the power to do this?
Yet in the end, who gives them the power to do this?
I dare you to *try* and answer your own question.
In any relationship, it is the party who wants less that has the power
I feel that is a dodge. Now having said that, my view is that wanting less doesn't make one more powerful in *any* relationship. In many relationships it simply means one is less apt to be frustrated or disappointed.
However, when one considers the position of, for example, an emperor, or some other sort of sovereign monarch, who clearly wants a great deal from his subjects at any given time, would you argue that the people, who generally only have a few basic wants, have more power than the potentate?
On a less exalted level, let us also consider the question as it relates to an employer and an employee?
re: "my view is that wanting less doesn't make one more powerful in *any* relationship."
Are you sure?
I guess it is true that all relationships are bidirectional on multiple levels and that in the end, the give and take must balance out ore the relationship will fall apart.
This would be looking at "all issues" in a relation ship
But when you reduce the relationship to one issue between two people, you should clearly see the person or party who wants less on this one issue is far more powerful. To keep the relationship together there must be some other way that the first person or party gets what they want back for the relationship to "balance" and/or remain stable. Otherwise it will become unstable and collapse quickly.
Indeed, this is the only way that two diverse parties cooperate on a particular subject when one wants more than the other on one issue: the other must get more on another.
And re: the people REALLY only have a few wants?
Again, are you sure?
The number one thing I hear from politicians is that they will help people who keep coming to them who are in need and hurting.
So re: the employer-employee relationship.
Are we looking at it "wholistically"?
Or are we looking at it from just one issue (reducing it down to a particular viewpoint or frame of reference)?
Both views are valid and both have their problems.
In response to the following...
re: "my view is that wanting less doesn't make one more powerful in *any* relationship."
You asked, Are you sure?
I am sure of only a few things, and that isn't one of them.
I am more sure of my assertion regarding "the people's wants
I think traditionally that "The People" did, indeed, have few wants. They amounted to wanting the means to provide the basics for themselves, food, shelter and such, and, more recently in human history, to not be exploited by those who resided in the socio-economic class above. That's something of a Marxist analysis, but, by my reckoning, reasonably valid.
The Enlightenment period is the time when people's conception of their wants, and their ability to acquire them, markedly expanded.That period seems kaput to me which is one, perhaps the reason, why I think Revolutions, which are almost entirely an Enlightenment phenomena, are passe.
The Enlightenment was, in essence, a luxury, made possible by The Industrial Revolution, and that is an epoch that is also, for all intents and purposes, exhausted. But then, here too, I am not sure.
And with that in mind, a few more thoughts.
It's funny, even in our present period, where the bar has been, so to speak, raised, I don't think the populace as a whole wants a great deal- at least of a sort they aren't already getting.
If this were not the case, then the tea in the Tea Party movement wouldn't be so weak, so easily co-opted. Perhaps that will change, and sooner than I think.
Strangely enough, at least to me, what "we" proletariat want from those holding the reigns of power hasn't changed much over, but, in general, compared to other, not so distant periods in human history, "we" seem content with being told, however indirectly, that, going forward, "we" will need to adjust to a state of diminishing fortunes (double entendre intended).
I kid you not, a few hours after my last comment, I read this. Notice the paragraph on "rolling back The Enlightenment."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/02/guest-post-the-other-reason-that-the-u-s-is-not-regulating-wall-street.html
My own feelings on "what I know" are also close to yours so touche.
As for all this other stuff, I am not sure I follow you.
Let me ask for a clarification if you do not mind.
How is a credit cycle, caused by bankers who lend someone else's money for personal gain to people who fundamentally never should have been loaned this money in the first place, different in any way from a government worker/politician who personally gains when they borrow someone else's money and give it to people who fundamentally can pay such money back?
On a personal level I have a hard time seeing the outrage at one yet not at the other.
Both cause credit cycles, both occur for personal profit, both leave voters at another time holding the bag, etc...
I'll respond to your other point in another comment.
Sorry, typo
fundamentally CAN NOT pay it back
Re: the tea party is not a major movement
Who cares? When did size always matter?
Again, I am not outraged by this who credit cycle thing more than a bunch of other stuff that outrages me so it is hard to put my head in your shoes.
But if you are really upset about the bankers, and have a plan for the change you want, it does not matter if you are a large movement nearly as much as you think.
For I might remind you of the simple fact that if there are nine people in a room and four are on one side while four are on the other, it is the 9th person who becomes the kingmaker so to speak. ;-)
The two political parties pretty much cancel each other out like 1 + (-1) = 0
One person can always make a difference, we see this butterfly effect in politics all the time.
Thai asked:
"How is a credit cycle, caused by bankers who lend someone else's money for personal gain to people who fundamentally never should have been loaned this money in the first place, different in any way from a government worker/politician who personally gains when they borrow someone else's money and give it to people who fundamentally can pay such money back?"
Thai, the credit cycle (debacle) involved more (treachery) than what you refer to. Who are the politicians who have personally gained while borrowing someone else's money, (all borrowing, by definition, involves OPM by the way) that they have then given to people who fundamentally can not pay loans back?
But putting all that aside for a second, I don't place on a higher plateau of outrage any of the banking and insurance industry criminal actions from those committed by "government."
The two are inextricable.
And it is not just the politicians, it is also the people who work for the bureaucracy, it is the people who received the money from the government, etc...
Post a Comment