Senate Intelligence Committee - Sickening

[mfrese 0]

Vinny...stop all this arguing...and don't sit on my kiddie!

Iceman

Doctor I ain't gonna die,
Just write me an alibi! ---- Lemmy/Slash

[billvon 3,116]

>Let's perform a hypothetical study. Suppose you sample 1000
> people and ask them if they have had an STD. Publish NOTHING
> about the demographics of your sample pool other than the results.
> Is your research, based upon a random sample of people, worth
> anything? can its results be extrapolated and used accurately to
> describe the general populace?

If it's done well - of course it can be. If your selection criteria are truly random, the results will represent what the odds that a random person will have an STD. If you want to find out how many _women_ have STD's, you need to collect _that_ information.

This is done all over the place. People poll prospective voters to determine whether a candidate will win an election, and they can make such predicitons with reasonable accuracy. Generally the only selection criteria is if they plan to vote. Age, comeliness, religion etc doesn't matter because a christian's vote counts as much as a hindu's vote in the US.

> Comeliness, age, religious beliefs, physical infirmities, culture, and
> a myriad of other variables that exist would skew the data.

No it wouldn't, because age (for example) has been removed as a factor both in your sampled population and the application population. As mentioned before, if you want to include the odds that a 20-24 year old will have an STD, you have to collect that data as well.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

There is no thought process involved here dude. Judging people by their race is wrong. I refuse to do so. Those who choose to do so often cite poverty as a reason. Poverty, as the figures you posted show, knows no racial boundaries, so I consider that entire line of defense stupid. Exactly what thought process is involved?

In the purest sense of the word, poverty knows no religion, you are absolutely right. It is also an over simplified statement, one I thought you were too smart to make.

People of all races live below the poverty line, there is no doubt about it. However (and I am not using actual numbers, but ficticious numbers to make a point) if you find that of the total population living below the poverty line 85% is Chinese, yet only 5% of the total population is Chinese, you can draw some conculsions from that. It has nothing to do with judging people on race, hence I am not really sure where that argument came from.

What you could conclude is that if you can (with the limited means generally available to fight poverty and like issues) reduce the amount of Chinese living below the poverty line, you can make a grand reduction in the total population.

Further, you can conclude that Chinese have a higher likelihood of living below the poverty line and one can do some research into finding answers relating to why that is so.

I really do not see what the issue is with that. Many of it goes back to such simplistic thoughts as biggest bang for your buck. Logical thought processes I use in the business world on a daily basis.

making a over simplified statement of poverty knows no race is a simple cop out, nothing more and nothing less. I would have thought you had a more evolved thought process than that.

Quote

The folks who produced the study you're exhorting about have produced some statistics based upon a random sampling and presented little data other than responses to the questions they asked.

Right, simple questions with simple answers from a random smapling of the US population. Like thousands of polls are done, most with fairly accurate results since the goal was to poll the whole population, not a specific sub-group.

In comparing the two, I would still hold that more valid (even if it could be flawed) than a letter from an unidentified source.

[TheAnvil 0]

Hi Bill & SkyDekker
I disagree. I don't think RDD capable of generating a decent pool of folks. My sample was with STDs - the document in question was for knowledge of current events(much more complex an issue). I have never believed in stand alone statistics and never will. I do not believe stand alone statistics such as those presented in the document without any supporting data can be taken seriously. At least not by myself, but I don't take many statistics at face value.

With regards to racial demographics below the poverty line, Skydekker is correct in some aspects. You can make inferences based upon such things. But the fact remains that I find racial discrimination revolting, regardless of its cause or intent. The fact that poverty does NOT know any racial boundaries makes the favored tactic (in my opinion) of lefties who condone racially discriminatory programs a futile one when dealing with me. Add to that their incessant refusal to admit that they, not I, support racial discrimination and you have an impotent argument (an an ostrich). When the left wants to admit this, I'll talk with them about it. Given my own background and experiences with poverty in the US and institutionalized racism (affirmative action), they are fighting an uphill battle regardless. Without a tenable argument.

As I stated previously somewhere, should they choose to propose AA based upon parents' tax returns or something of that nature, I would definitely consider it. Racially discriminatory AA - no way. It's revolting to me and does nothing but stratify the US along racial lines - ie. weaken the US. Disgusting.

Blues and beers to all,

Vinny

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Amazon - I think you have a bit of a skewed view of what a conservative is - what you were describing is fascism - repeat after me - Osama bin Laden is a maniacle fascist.

That being said - Conservatives, right wingers, Republicans, mostly synonomous with each other have subtle differences. Conservatism (in my opinion) can be summed up rather quickly.

1)Work for a living - There are jobs there for the taking.

2)Go to school - there are better jobs for those that do.

3)Dont be a sponge - Take responsibility for what you do in your life and quit living on handouts, the "poor me" attitude is expensive to those of us that do pay the most taxes.

4)Less is more - we don't need the government to micromanage our lives.(hmm kinda differs from the whole dictatorship thing, no?) And we assuredly do not need the gov't to tell us what we are capable of. If you take the free ride away, the neccessity to use your own legs becomes prevalent.

What ones perception is and what the reality are are far different things.

Most people do work for a living. percentage wise.. far too many work in underpaid jobs and more workers find themselves in that boat all the time.. Read up on outsourcing and where your jobs are going thanks to corporations who are less than patriotic... and are driven solely by capatalism. As a stockholder of several corporations.. its nece to see dividends I have to pay more taxes on.. as an American I think it sucks to claim patriotism.. while putting american families out of work. Yet the Conservatives support this in droves.

2) I certainly used every last cent of the GI Bill I earned by serving in the military for 8 years. There are ways but I would like it opened up more to merit.. than to simply those who have the ability to pay. In the long run wasting minds due to lack of financial resouces of gifted but poor students is far more anti american in our lessening of our ability to compete in an ever more complex world. There are scholarships available.. but shrinking and exceedingly hard to get... Who actually gets them... Families who can afford to already send thier children to the good schools.....hmmm or to those that merit them.
3) Don't be a sponge... I agree... but those who really need help.. should be helped.. a society is judged on the basis of how it treats its less fortunate.... you know... those pesky judeo-christian principles that the RIGHT HAND touts...

4)Less is indeed more.. I would love less taxes.. I pay way too many as it is Why the hell should I have to pay taxes for education.. when my kid is 23 years old and a college graduate..... why.. because education of the next generation is one of the MOST important functions of government. I would rather live in a country with educated people... who know and understand what this country is supposed to be about... than be around people like some of my relatives that find it patriotic and very conservative to be sheet wearing...dumb as dirt grandparents when they are in their 30's.

Yet the recent Patriot act does indeed micromanage our lives... intruding into our lives in the guise of security. J Edgar Hoover was really into this as well.. Loved to get all the little dirty secrets so he could use it to political advantage. But I guarantee you that way too many conservatives demand more and more of the kinds of government services beneficial to them..... but to hell with everyone else..

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I too was once a liberal. I too once like Clinton. But then I woke up. Politicians ALL OF THEM are just that. Politicians. I don't hold them to any higher stardard than anyone else. We should, but we can't.

Now there is a friggin news flash.. yet so many of the RIGHT HAND can and do purport to hold them to higher standards.

Quote

I too was once a liberal. I too once like Clinton. But then I woke up. Politicians ALL OF THEM are just that. Politicians. I don't hold them to any higher stardard than anyone else. We should, but we can't.

again perceptions....of my own family that dates back a couple centuries in the south. I grew up with them.... My aunt once told me... if a guy describes himself as a good ole boy.... grab your purse and run like hell.

So many of the RIGHT HAND platforms are those of the good ole south... all the things I saw growing up.. the religeous wrongs... but hey... as long as you go to church on sunday and ask for forgiveness from god..... all is forgiven... step out of church.. and go back to screwing people over again all week. So many of the bad things of the Dixiecrats have made it into the Republican party...couched in new terms and cloaked in Patriotic phrases without looking at the underlying realities.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

With regards to racial demographics below the poverty line, Skydekker is correct in some aspects. You can make inferences based upon such things. But the fact remains that I find racial discrimination revolting, regardless of its cause or intent. The fact that poverty does NOT know any racial boundaries makes the favored tactic (in my opinion) of lefties who condone racially discriminatory programs a futile one when dealing with me. Add to that their incessant refusal to admit that they, not I, support racial discrimination and you have an impotent argument (an an ostrich). When the left wants to admit this, I'll talk with them about it. Given my own background and experiences with poverty in the US and institutionalized racism (affirmative action), they are fighting an uphill battle regardless. Without a tenable argument.

I am not a big fan of Affirmative Action either. I think the best person should be given a job, regardless of sex race etc. I find it is the same as giving those starving a fish, I think it is better to teach them how to fish. Those types of programs can easily be run targeted at certain groups. However, you need the race data to be able to to that.

[TheAnvil 0]

I disagree. Tax returns are an ideal method with which to do so - no race involved.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,116]

>This should sicken every American, regardless of party.

I just read the original text of the thing, here. Interestingly, I did not see, anywhere, a discussion of what would be most harmful to the president's chances of re-election. They noted they could only launch an independent investigation once. They elected to delay that until they either had solid leads or had a chance to air their preliminary report and get public feedback. This is sickening? Waiting for solid leads or feedback before launching an investigation?

It seems like their objective is summed up in the final paragraph:

------------
We have an important role to play in the revealing the misleading -- if not flagrantly dishonest methods and motives -- of the senior administration officials who made the case for a unilateral, preemptive war.
--------------

If that is true, that senior administration officials flagrantly falsified intelligence information to make a case for war, it is the _responsibility_ of the Senate Intelligence Committee to determine that. If not, then they should leave it be. It would therefore behoove them to determine whether or not their evidence is solid before proceeding - which is what they said they intend to do.

Is the fact that they are democrats and the president is a republican a factor? I'd bet dollars to donuts it is. Should Senate committees always agree with the administration? Absolutely not; there's a reason there are three independent branches of government. Should this committee work as a team instead of as two squabbling factions? Yes. But I can't see what the big stink is about - unless there's an opposing drive to quash any investigation into pre-war intelligence at all costs.

[TheAnvil 0]

It lives (the thread).

I disagree in part. Check out the first sentence in Para1 and Para3 in its entirety. Add to that that every single person in America with a three digit IQ realizes there's a presidential election in '04, and you've got a really damning memo here. 'Pulling along' and 'castigating' the majority are not used in bipartisan writing, regardless of context.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[billvon 3,116]

>'Pulling along' and 'castigating' the majority are not used in
>bipartisan writing, regardless of context.

I agree; it's more partisan than it needs to be. But let's look at the breakdown of the memo, especially the parts you note:

Para 1. "Pull along" the committee as much as possible into the investigations they wish to initiate. That means include the entire committee in the discussions and talk them into participating. This is exactly what any committee member _should_ be doing - trying to talk the committee into pursuing the lines of investigation they want. The committee can always say no.

Para 2. Include minority opinions on committee reports. Nothing unusual; the supreme court does this all the time.

Para 3. Launch an independent investigation when all other options are exhausted. As they note, committee rules allow them to do this once.

3a. Wait to launch the independent investgation until they have presented the evidence for it to the public. Seems pretty reasonable.

3b. Wait until they have solid leads rather than vague notions. It's hard to argue with that as an approach.

The memo as written indicates a minority of the committee that disagrees with how the committee is investigating the issue of pre-war intelligence, and outlines their methods of pursuing the matter further via channels allowed to them. I would expect that, if a committee member were to strongly object to the path the committee was taking, that they do exactly that. If they are doing it purely for political gain, that would be a total misuse of the system. But only the very far right can claim at this point that there have been no problems with pre-war intelligence; there is clearly a serious problem that needs to be addressed, lest we start another war based on faulty and outdated intelligence. It is certainly worth some effort to make sure that doesn't happen again, even if most of the committee would prefer business as usual.

[TheAnvil 0]

I disagree again Bill. The opening paragraph indicates the topic of this memo is not intelligence failures, rather it is concerning 'improper or questionable conduct of administration officials'. Granted, any such conduct is despicable and SHOULD be disclosed to the public. Were that the only hint of partisanship herein, I wouldn't make that much of it.

However, they admit that they 'don't know what' they will find in para1, state their intent to castigate the majority in para2, and then in para3b they admit again that they haven't identified any solid leads that the majority does not want to pursue.

Paras 1 & 2 indicate the direction of their investigative efforts will be on partisan attacks on the administration vice focusing on intelligence failures. Para 3 shows they already plan to launch an independent investigation regardless of the investigations outcome. Paras 3a&b simply give the pro's and con's of doing so at a particular time under a particular set of circumstances.

This has no place in this committee. I agree that dissenting opinions always have a place in a committee's report and believe them an important part of our judiciary system. That being said, this committee is special and this memo - in my view -clearly states an intent to use it as a launch pad for a partisan attack in a presidential election year.

I also agree that the investigation it is currently undertaking IS important. That makes the memo of discussion even more despicable to me. Should misuse of intelligence info be investigated - absolutely. If it was deliberately misused, there should be consequences most severe. That should fall under the purvey of this committee and be a part of the investigation - but not its focus. From all appearances intelligence failures - both collection and management - seem to be at fault here and should be the primary focus.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[lawrocket 3]

Dang it, I'm gone for a week and I miss a doozy of a thread like this.

My 3 or 4 cents?
1) If there is alleged wrongdoing investigate it.
2) If you investigate it, don't wait for it.
3) If there are efforts made to hamper an investigation, then make those efforts known.
4) If there is wrondoing proven, go for it.

The idea about waiting for the election cycle is just flabbergasting to me. In sum, they allege wrongdoing. But, whatever wrongdoing isn't worng enough now, since there is no election. Basically, the plan is to let the worngdoer keep doing it, maybe get people killed, and jeopardize operations because it's not an election year.

Why save lives and fix a wrong when you can help election efforts?

That is politicking to the worst degree.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 3,116]

>they admit that they 'don't know what' they will find in para1 . .

Correct, and thus they state that they will wait until they have solid leads before launching any investigation. If they had solid leads they would be derelict in _not_ launching an investigation immediately.

>state their intent to castigate the majority in para2,

For limiting the scope of the inquiry. Imagine a response to this memo, castigating the democrats on the committee for partisan politics. Would you object to that as well?

Whoever wrote this memo plans on complaining that senior administration officials made claims that do not jibe with intelligence available, and further that the administration attempted to limit the scope of the investigation into that disconnect. If they indeed did that, they SHOULD be castigated. I would agree with that paragraph with the addition of that disclaimer.

>Paras 1 & 2 indicate the direction of their investigative efforts will be
> on partisan attacks on the administration vice focusing on
> intelligence failures . . .

Which is their job. I would hope the republicans would "attack" (i.e. investigate) the administration as well if the issue is truly that they misused intelligence information to make a case for war.

>That being said, this committee is special and this memo - in my
> view -clearly states an intent to use it as a launch pad for a partisan
> attack in a presidential election year.

You may interpret that way, but there is nothing in the memo that states that.

>From all appearances intelligence failures - both collection and
> management - seem to be at fault here and should be the primary
> focus.

The primary focus is that intelligence data was misreported. The failure happened somewhere between what was collected by the CIA and what came out of the president's mouth. The entire path between those two events is what should be the primary focus; we should not exclude any part of it in order to ensure a president is re-elected next year. THAT is partisan politics at its worst.

If anything, if I were you I'd let the investigation proceed. If, as you claim, you really want to get to the bottom of this, then an independent investigation is the best way to do that. If there has been a deliberate misinformation campaign by the administration, then I assume you would want that known. If not, then the democrats look like idiots for forcing the issue. In both cases you win.

[TheAnvil 0]

If the majority were limiting the scope of investigation then the minority would have solid leads identified that the majority didn't want to pursue - they don't. As the memo states, the chairman has authorized their requests for information, co-signing them in fact.

I just don't buy this timing of the independent investigation not being a completely partisan act. Yes, the memo doesn't openly state it as such, but everyone in D.C. knows what's going on next year and, as the memo mentions, they are worried about public opinions concerning their actions. If this were a non-partisan memo that would not be the case.

Due to the gravity of its work, these shennanigans have no place around this committee. Ever.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[mikkey 0]

Quote

I just don't buy this timing of the independent investigation not being a completely partisan act. Yes, the memo doesn't openly state it as such, but everyone in D.C. knows what's going on next year and, as the memo mentions, they are worried about public opinions concerning their actions. If this were a non-partisan memo that would not be the case.

Due to the gravity of its work, these shennanigans have no place around this committee. Ever.

Just don't get the excitement. Isn't this the normal MO in politics?
When Ken Starr was supposed to look into Clinton's property dealings it was politically motivated. They spent AKAIK $100 M on it, turned to his sex live because they could not find anything on Whitewater, and colluded with Paula Jones' civil lawsuit to entrap him into perjury. Then the whole thing went through a committee in the house and impeachment proceeding in the Senate.....

So some people want to time the investigations into issues of intelligence f** ups to gain maximum political advantage. So what - its called politics....

---------------------------------------------------------
When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray.

[TheAnvil 0]

The differences are amazing.

- This committee's purpose requires it to be free of partisan wrangling. That's why you don't see any fire-brands on there. Dianne Feinstein is the most vocal of the committee I'd say and as much as I detest her politics, she is not a flame spewer.

- The Whitewater investigation was initiated by Clinton himself in '94. Ken Starr was completing an investigation started by Bob Fiske the previous year. Given the outcome of the RTC investigaion and all of the criminal activity associated with Whitewater and Madison Guaranty, I'm not exactly sure why some believe this investigation unwarranted. Though, admittedly, this would be one of the lesser of Clinton's crimes. '94 is not an election year - this investigation was not triggered at a predetermined time for partisan gain - unlike the one planned in the memo.

There are others, but those are two of the first that pop into my head. Completely different scenarios.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!