nerdgirl

I hope that we don't disappoint. We also need old allies and new ones. And I do largely agree with Jeanne that most of America is purple. i'm being serious when i say that i don't understand the tone of your post. its perfectly obvious to me why they would be crying - this is a momentous occasion for african american people, whether you happen to like those 2 individuals or not. for all of us, in fact. i am SO incredibly proud that i get to be alive to see a black person elected president of this country, so i can't even begin to imagine what they're feeling tonight! why that's being mocked, i won't pretend to understand. i can appreciate obama not mentioning it in his speech - and for this very reason, but c'mon! this is a historic event and i think its complete crap that celebration by the black community is being criticized. ugh. Largely concur. And I cried in celebration last night and I'm a white girl ... all y'all can ascribe that to a girl-thing or whatever. From my perspective it's more a cognizance of history. While foreign policy, economics, civil liberties, and choice of advisors were the drivers for my choice, I can appreciate the significance even if it was *not* a driver for me. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Are you being serious or facetious? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Like that … like that a lot … gonna steal that one … with permission, of course.

Best line, imo: “‘War is the improvement of investment climate by other means,’ Clausewitz for Dummies.” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

More than twice while backpacking or climbing, I've been called "Pippi Longstocking" ... red hair in pigtails. (No freckles tho'.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Not BG Mitchell. This guy. I was thinking of the same guy.

Your last comment suggests a speculation and lines of questioning that I had not considered. First, why would the Defense Business Board want a crisis? It seems pretty reasonable to assume the DBB is operating independently of a Presidential campaign. Defense contracting, acquisition, and contractor services are going to continue regardless of party. Would you suggest a scenario reminiscent of President Eisenhower’s (in)famous farewell address? Otoh, the DBB was charged to “assess elements of transition efforts and identify factors that will drive the next Administration’s governance focus and minimize risk associated with the transfer of power” (p. 1 of the brief). They identified the single issue of most concern to be “The Administration must be ready to govern immediately upon taking office and respond to any national crisis” (p. 2). That was the single “issue” they identified. Second, rather than setting aside some of the cited events as solely “manufactured” (as a means to explain the historical record), I would suggest that they are indicative of the need to not be over-ambitious or reactionary in responding to foreign events or overly driven by ideology without having the civilian leadership in place who lack the “necessary gravitas” (p. 5). Or perhaps the causal vector is in the wrong direction? For which administrations is the “manufacturing” of crisis in the first 270 days more likely? Perhaps the prevalence/some of international crises … or perhaps more precisely, international incidents … in the first 270 days is not evidence of intentional manufacture, but they are an (inadvertent) consequence of administration? One really would need to examine the foreign policy intentions and inclinations of each President and make-up of Congress at the time. For example, partisans, pundits, and others have criticized President Clinton’s focus on domestic issues – as you wrote, the 1993 attack on the WTC was “a crisis.” Without that outside factor/force, would that administration be inclined to focus on domestic issues? Because President Clinton was not inclined to pursue actively foreign affairs, the presence of a Democratically-controlled Congress in the first 2 years was not a factor for this. By the same token, there is evidence to suggest that “challenging hostile governments” & invading/liberating Iraq was a goal of the neoconservative elite of early Pres GW Bush administration; i.e., the foreign policy intentions pre-date Bush’s election. Was there inclination to expeditionary, assertive, reactionary, or pro-active foreign policy in the early policies and early administrations of the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, or GHW Bush administrations? Are administrations that are inclined to impetuous, risky or well-intentioned but ill-advised in hindsight foreign-directed behavior restrained over time by becoming enmeshed in the bureaucracy? I.e., after the first 180-270 days. One of the fundamental functions of bureaucracy is to keep bad ideas from being implemented, e.g., “death by coordination.” This is not a bad thing. Is the history of international incidents in the first year of a Presidential term the dependent variable and the foreign policy inclination (however well-intentioned or misguided) of an administration the independent variable? And perhaps, more timely, what does that say about the current Presidential choices? Which one is more likely to "create" (your word) an international crisis or respond more impulsively to one? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Please read the news story to which [normiss] linked or provide additional information. Folks who live in West Hollywood are reporting this as a hate crime. The Secret Service reportedly is investigating. Per the quote in the news story, the individual who is not treating/responding to it as a hate crime is the LA County Sheriff ... & with attention, I suspect that may change. To the contrary, an effigy of Sen Obama was hung from a tree. That happened at the end of September. It got much less attention here than this incident, afaik ... and we will see if gets less attention in the commercial media. The discussion w/r/t the motive for that noosed effigy largely revolved around whether the act was political or not, rather than was it a "hate" crime or not. Another effigy of Sen Obama that was hung north of Cincinnati two weeks ago also received little attention in the commercial media or here. The man, Mike Lunsford, responsible, has asserted that Obama is "not a full-blooded American and that the United States is a white, Christian nation, and only with white Christians should be in power." VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, polls and media watched can affect decisions and decisions to vote or not to vote. Election day reporting on polling results from the East Coast has been shown to influence West Coast, Hawaii, and Alaska voting; as results are being posted/reported from the East Coast are announced, voters don’t go to vote or demonstrate a ‘band-wagon’ effect. Pre-election day polls that are reported have also been shown to affect outcomes. Altho' generally not a media-reported phenomena, order of names on a ballot can affect outcome. The presence or absence of FOX cable news in media market can affect voting. Most are small (

How so? Do you have specific examples? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

From the article you cited, it does appear this it is being _reported_ as a hate crime: The video also mentioned the Secret Service is investigating. The individuals cited as not considering it problematic were the owners of the haunted house and the LA County Sheriff: Perhaps that's with whom issue should be taken? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I would speculate that the “270 days” the DBB used correlates to average amount of time to get a majority of the civilian leadership Class “A” political appointees confirmed by the Senate. Typically Exec Level II’s (USDs) are not through Senate confirmation process until end of June and most of the Exec Level III’s (DUSD/ASD/ATSD/DDR&E) don’t come up until October or later. E.g., the DDR&E in President Bush's first admin was not confirmed until August 2001 and the ATSD(NCB) was not confirmed until November 2001. It’s a combined artifact of the process (generally SecDef wants to have some voice on DepSecDef and USDs; the USDs want to have some input into their DUSDs/ASDs/ATSD/DDRE, etc), tradition, & the Senate calendar. Vacancies are an increasing chronic problem, altho' much worse at DHS than DoD. Why do we need a BG Mitchell? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Max, Your comment above (“‘negative’ liberty (?)”) suggests unfamiliarity with the term. What do you think a negative liberty is? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

p.s. the members of the Defense Business Board appointed by the Secretary of Defense and serve a 2 year renewable term. A majority of the current members were appointed during SecDef Rumsfeld's tenure. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Does the content of this sound a lot like the content of Sen Biden’s comment that were discussed here last week? Excerpt from insidedefense.com, a “news report for defense professionals.” “The next president is likely to face a major international crisis within his first nine months in office, according to a senior group of business advisers to the defense secretary. “Michael Bayer, chairman of the Defense Business Board and veteran Pentagon consultant, this week called for the next administration to move quickly to avoid encountering civilian leadership vacuums that often accompany political transitions. “'Prepare for a likely first 270 days crisis',” Bayer warns in an Oct. 23 briefing. 'Too many presidents were ill prepared for this.' “Joe Biden, the Democratic ticket's vice presidential nominee, drew criticism earlier this week for suggesting that should he and Barack Obama prevail in the Nov. 4 election, U.S. adversaries will mount an attack of some kind to test the new president. “Bayer's briefing, presented yesterday to a public meeting of the Defense Business Board, recommends the future president elect and his advisers 'set aside time in transition to identify the planning, gravitas and interagency process necessary to respond to a likely first-270-day crisis.' “His briefing also notes challenges that nearly every president since Dwight Eisenhower has faced in the early days. In 1953, Eisenhower agreed to work with the British to depose Iran's prime minister and install the Shah; John Kennedy ordered the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in April 1961; Lyndon Johnson in Aug. 1964 had to deal with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which became a pretext for escalating U.S. military involvement in Vietnam. “Richard Nixon, in the third month of this presidency in 1969, escalated U.S. military operations in Southeast Asia by ordering aerial attacks against Cambodia and Laos. Jimmy Carter, during his first month in office in 1977, directed unilateral removed of nuclear weapons from South Korea and announced plans to reduce the number of U.S. troops from the peninsula, a step that drew public criticism from then Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub, a senior U.S. commander in South Korea, whom Carter relieved of duty. In his fifth month as president, George H.W. Bush, in the summer of 1989, sent the first wave of U.S. military personnel to Panama to set the stage for the launch of “Operation Just Cause” that December. “Finally, Bayer’s briefing notes, Bill Clinton, in Feb. 1993, his second month in office, had to manage the World Trade Center bombing; while George W. Bush, in April of his first year in office, dealt with the downing of a Navy spy plane near China. Months later, Bush was faced with the terrorist attacks in September in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania.” In some ways the last 3 quoted paragraphs (history of early-term conflicts encountered by 20th Century presidents) is one of those announcements from what I flippantly call the “US Dept of ‘Duh.’” One might argue that Sen Biden’s first ‘mistake’ was being too open and honest, i.e., the ‘foot-in-mouth’ disease for which he is known. Whether it comes from Sen Biden or the Defense Business Board is open, forthright discussion of the likelihood of conflict (outright or otherwise) unwanted? Not in my opinion. I’d actually like to see more thoughtful discussion of potential threats, their potential/probable origin, and discussion of strategies for addressing them across the spectrum of all possible responses. That is, discussion of options beyond sending the uniformed services OCONUS. (Sen Biden's 2nd mistake was the non-uncommon biblical and literary references, perhaps.) There is another aspect that may reflect my thinking and may not be intentional: many times simply putting forth information with the caveat that we’re prepared, expecting, and able to responds sends a message to adversaries to think twice, i.e., it’s a deterrent and form of strategic communications. It is a different type of deterrence than is often discussed here (e.g., nuclear deterrence). It’s the same kind of deterrence that drives US investment in anthrax vaccines and therapeutics: if a state has countermeasures, it reduces vulnerabilty. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the link - neat site. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I like that. I'm going to steal that one. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

On what do you base that? Unless one redefines "left" (not 'liberal') to mean free-market capitalist ideal? This may be an illustrative example of the need to recognize the difference between political affiliation/leaning and social values versus economics. They are not the same. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the feedback. You don't have to apologize, but I do appreciate the implied kindness. My writing is dense, i.e., 'closely packed with ideas or complexities of style' as opposed to 'stupid, slow-witted, dull.' I'm also not going to apologize for not making things too easy. I find it more insulting (& occasionally amusing) when people make negative/false assumptions of my intellect; I aim to not replicate that error. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What do you think "economic justice" means? Most commonly I've encountered the term with respect to siting polluting industries near low-income areas. Higher income areas rarely have been the location for coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, medical waste incinerators, water pollution, and location of offending industries, e.g., hog farming. The latter two are as common or more commonly rural poor (rather than inner city) issues. (NB: more recent environmental regulations have significantly decreased many/some of these, sometimes at greater cost to the producer.) The consequences of those citings has been increased incidence of deleterious health effects: asthma, certain cancers (generally fatty tissue ones and certain childhood cancers), and other diseases. Point: there are real, physical consequences. The risk is not distributed ... either. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

i always thought that the constitution's main objective was to protect the people from the goverment, not to provide for the people. To a large extent, yes. And if one reads the above quoted excerpt form 2001 independent from today's political rhetoric that is what (then Mr)-Obama said. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yeah, it does. Taxing corporations means the end consumers just fund the tax. It's not smart unless it's done honestly... meaning politicians say, "hey, we need money so we're gonna tax company profits," instead of pretending that some great social justice will be done by taxing profits. I think corporate taxes should be lowered to bring more business here. As for Palin's plan, it worked... FOR ALASKA. Why? Because the oil companies didn't only raise taxes IN Alaska. Don't confuse me with someone who will not criticize "their side". Thanks for the honest response. The point about raising taxes or prices only in one State is interesting. And no, I made no assumption or confusion. Unless someone is posting arrogantly and condescendingly about a very narrow set of topics (e.g., bugs, gas, pointy-things-with fins, or shiny metal death topics), my posts are straightforward. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Perhaps, I am being 'dense' or too literal this evening. Again, the point is ... Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm genuinely curious: does it matter to you (or anyone else who makes the same criticism) that Governor Palin did exactly that? It is entirely valid to prioritize other issues that may be seen as more important. From the Seattle Times: “Over the opposition of oil companies, Republican Gov. Sarah Palin and Alaska’s Legislature last year approved a major increase in taxes on the oil industry -- a step that has generated stunning new wealth for the state as oil prices soared.” In August 2006, Palin passed legislation imposing a tax of 22.5% to oil companies in Alaska. In October 2007, she increased the tax to 25%. “‘By receiving an equitable share for our resources, we are now in a position to demand more accountability and seize opportunities to save for future generations,’ [Governor] Palin said in a statement released last December as she signed the next tax bill into law.” When I first cited this at the beginning of September, the "wealth redistribution" meme had not become viral. How is imposing a tax to enable the citizens of Alaska to "receiv[e] an equitable share for our resources" fundamentally different or more like that which has been so heavily criticized? Additionally, Governor Palin “raised taxes on oil profits by $1.5 billion a year and rejected industry ownership of a $25 billion pipeline,” i.e., she transferred ownership from private entity to the State. Compare that to what was mentioned by Rep Maxine Waters said during Congressional hearing that garnered much vitriol – very similar. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

A different network chart showing Sen Obama's connections to figures of merit or de-merit. It was partially inspired by one of the links in Mike’s sig line, which I had queried about previously, and more significantly due to being stuck in an airport. All links are true; interpretations less so. Show some different connections … had fun seeing how many I could tie myself into … & I have never met or corresponded directly with Sen Obama. Underlying the *intentional* hyperbole of my chart & perhaps (?) unintentional hyperbole of others wandering around the internet is the concept of how important context is and how selection bias in choosing the nodes of the network can be used to suggest or imply very different conclusions. Please read with tongue firmly planted in cheek. VR/Marg ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praised Sen Obama in an interview w/Wolf Blitzer in July. In September, Rice was the highest ranking member of the US since VP Nixon to meet with the Libyan leader. The last SecState to meet with Qa’ddafi was Dulles. Rice is advocating for increased ties for trade, access to oil, and international aid (largely w/r/t destruction declared stockpile of ~16,000 mt of sulfur mustard). Sen Obama has been getting foreign policy and defense advice from former Sen Sam Nunn, who endorsed Obama in April. Nunn is co-chair and co-founder of the Nuclear Threat Initiative with Ted Turner, who founded CNN, therefore Sen Obama clearly has the support of CNN and Ted’s Montana Grill and endorses exotic game (buffalo) for dinner. Sen Obama co-sponsored with Sen Richard Lugar (R-IN) the Obama-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Legislation. President Bush signed it into law in January 2008. Therefore Sen Obama is endorsing the kind of legislation Pres Bush signed into law. Sen Obama spoke at the Council of Foreign Relations. Robert Murdock is a member of CFR. Murdoch owns The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, thus suggesting that Milyo was correct: the Wall Street Journal is a far left-leaning paper. Sen Barack Obama is connected to former SecNav Richard Danzing, who is advising Sen Obama on defense issues. SecNav Danzig hosted a long-standing symposia series with Prof Brett Giroir (Texas A&M). Giroir was Chief of DARPA’s Defense Science Office (DSO) from 2004 through early 2008. DSO is DARPA’s (nee ARPA) basic research shop. An ARPA basic research led to the internet (through NSF). So clearly, it is not Sen Gore that should be able to "claim" origination of the internet but Sen Obama. Sen Obama taught at the University of Chicago. One of the most famous economists from the UoC is Milton Friedman who has widely influenced the campus. Friedman met with, advised, and was an apologist for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, therefore Sen Obama clearly supports (1) radical free-market neo-liberal economics & (2) authoritarian right-wing dictators. Sen Obama graduated from Harvard Law School as did former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzales supported the policies of (now-UC Berkeley Law Professor/then-DOJ lawyer) John Yoo, who was responsible for much of the USA PATRIOT Act’s legislation that is seen as inhibiting civil liberties and wrote most of the DOJ memos supporting use of torture. And perhaps most indicting or to capture the ‘Paris Hilton-esque’ vote : Sen Obama is a distant cousin of Brad Pitt, Brad Pitt was in Sleepers in 1996 with Kevin Bacon. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying