nerdgirl

Isn’t that what we have in place in our district, State, & federal attorneys? They are paid through tax money to defend the law as it represents the standard codes of behavior among/between citizens, citizens and non-personal entities (corporations), and argues that they reflect the collective interests/rights of all the people of the city, State, or nation (e.g., to not have serial killers, illegal drug dealers, etc unrestrained) … not the interests/rights of a geographical piece of property or a building but the people who inhabit that the areas within the boundary. I'm really not understanding what you are getting at. What are you talking about, differentiating between defending the rights of a building?? Did I say anything about that? All I was doing was pointing out that the State (not "a" state, "the" State" prosecutes criminals as representatives of the People of the jurisdiction. That same government entity provides a state-paid defense attorney to defend the criminal defendant against the charges, with the hope and avowed goal of getting him acquitted. I believe a claim can be made that this presents a conflict of interest. All I was doing was pointing out that our legal system is already set up as you described on the prosecution side. Attorneys (i.e., local prosecutors, State attorneys, federal attorneys) representing the people are already paid by the people through taxes. Would you propose that the USG or State governments purchase for themselves what you describe as the “best” legal representation that money can buy? Hypothetically, if the USG or a State does not do that are they derelict in doing the utmost to protect the interest of the people whom they represent (i.e., all the law-abiding citizens)? Otoh, should every federal or State case (investigation &/or prosecution) be open for bidding? What is in the interest of the people then? Low-bidder or high-bidder (if one accepts that the “best” legal representation correlates to the highest cost)? Fixed fee or cost plus? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Imo, there have been a lot of missed opportunities and policy choices that have diverted the US attention from capturing Usama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and dismantling the global radical Islamic Salafists over the last 16 years. Unquestionably US efforts over the last 6 ½ years have severely limited al Qa’eda’s capacity. With the amount of US money and the best military in the world being put toward that goal, I expect nothing less. (Is this an example of the aphorism of throwing money at something does … or doesn’t fix a problem?) In the end, imo, it is the tacit support of the Taliban and al Qa’eda by the inhabitants of Afghanistan and Pakistan (aka “Talibanistan”) that hide and enable al Qa’eda. What are they reconstituting in northwest frontier? And why hasn’t al Qa’eda attacked the Continental US again? My explanations: Successes of the GWOT. The US and allies have been successful at disrupting and complicating al Qa’eda’s operations. Perception of target hardening/decreased (or less) vulnerability, aka DHS & TSA have done something other than make commercial aviation more frustrating; they've made US soft targets less easy. Success in conventional weapons and improvised explosives, as was noted by another poster. IEDs have been horribly and tragically effective. Patience. Al Qa’eda is waiting for an opportunity; they are patient. They’ve done that before. Wild Cards. Decentralized cells. Al Qa’eda is a highly decentralized network; the cells are still organizing operations. And one that a few here might be loathe to acknowledge much less admit, because it has nothing to do with our actions: Norms: Challenges from within the radical Islamist community. The US and allies do not have credibility with the radical Islamist community. It’s akin to a 12-yo whuffo commenting on skydiving. Otoh, a number of guys who do have radical Islamic ‘cred’ have started to speak out and engage in debates (some on the order of 100s of pages) with al Qa’eda. E.g., Muhammed Khalil al-Hakaymah’s September 2006 “Toward a New Strategy” warns against excessive violence and civilian targeting because it lessens popular support for mujahedeen; Saudi Arabian cleric Sheikh Salman Al Oudah Ramdan letter in 2007: “My brother Usama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocent people, children, elderly, and women have been killed … in the name of al Qa’eda?,” or most notably, imo, Sayed Iman Al Sharif (“Dr. Fadl”) has challenged his student, Ayman al-Zawahiri, “Jihad … was blemished with grave Sharia violations during recent years … [Now] there are those who kill hundreds, including women and children, Muslims and non-Muslims in the name of Jihad!” To be explicit, these men are *not* friendly to the US or liberal democracy, instead they see al Qa’eda as being damaging to their strategic interests and to the rise of their imagined rekindling of 7th CE Salafism. They are bad men; the last one is in jail in Egypt. Who are the tacit supporters of Taliban and al Qa’eda in “Talibanistan” going to find more credible? Last week the US military transitioned responsibility for security in the al Anbar province of Iraq to the Iraqis – yeah! Outside of Kabul, is there even stability and security to transition? In areas where there is ‘security’, is it most often provided by Taliban and Taliban conscripts/supporters? Frankly, one cannot reasonably expect rebuilding of a society that has been insecure for the last 19y (from Soviet invasion through today) in 5y. Whether you call it nation building or SSTR, we are still figuring out how to do it. “[T]he QDR recognizes Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) as a U.S. government wide mission of increasing importance and identifies military support to SSTR as a core mission.” Mentioned 26 times in the 2006 QDR. In addition to not capturing UBL & AZ, many recommendations of the 9-11 Commission have not been implemented or implemented very late, e.g., the “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007” was not introduced into the US House until 05Jan07. It was introduced into the Senate 04Jan07 as “Improving America's Security Act of 2007. Included in that bill was legislation on screening cargo entering US ports (e.g., for nuclear devices), rail transportation security, and increased security on industrial chemical facilities – all of which were recommendations from 9-11 Commission. Sen Obama voted for it; Sen McCain did not vote. (Imagine how the far right blog-o-sphere would react/spin that if Sen Obama had not voted?) President Bush signed the legislation on 03Aug07. I was in DC on Friday talking to/with folks who were involved in writing the 9/11 Commission (aka the “National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States”) report and folks who are on Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism. The thinking isn’t about the current administration; the impetus and the goals are to influence the next administration. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Isn’t that what we have in place in our district, State, & federal attorneys? They are paid through tax money to defend the law as it represents the standard codes of behavior among/between citizens, citizens and non-personal entities (corporations), and argues that they reflect the collective interests/rights of all the people of the city, State, or nation (e.g., to not have serial killers, illegal drug dealers, etc unrestrained) … not the interests/rights of a geographical piece of property or a building but the people who inhabit that the areas within the boundary. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The cited IBD Op-Ed (reprinted from a blog) is any interesting case, as is the thread title. These are fun lil’ puzzles to me … unfortunately this one wasn’t much of challenge. It was way too easy. Three easy places where the Op-Ed breaks down. (1) Accuracy/reproducibility of data: As someone else pointed out, the figures that William Tate’s used for his Op-Ed note that Fox & Fox News/Fox News Channel (supposedly) gave $41,853 to Democrats and $0 to Republicans. That should be a giant red flag that something is not quite right. Where & how did Tate get these numbers is a valid question? Going to the Federal Election Commission website, which provides an online search engine (paid for with your tax dollars), one can test a few. Encourage anyone/everyone to go do tests for themselves. First, test queried myself and retrieved accurate answers (positive test); second queried my cat and retrieved an accurate answer (negative test). Test 1: Tate asserts individuals associated with the Associated Press gave $2550 to Democrats and $545 to Republicans. Let’s see if Tate’s numbers can be regenerated/reproduced, which should cast some validity or some caution on his figures and analysis. Searching contributions from individuals noting “Associated Press” (entered in the “Employer/Occupation” field) between 01/01/2007 & 09/07/2008 and searching all contributions (both federal contributions and soft money), retrieved the following: BOYLE, SUSAN, WILMINGTON, DE 19802 SPECTER, ARLEN (R-PA) VIA CITIZENS FOR ARLEN SPECTER $250.00 LOTT, C TRENT (R-MS) VIA NEW REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FUND 250.00 GIULIANI, RUDOLPH W. VIA RUDY GIULIANI PRESIDENTIAL COMMITTEE INC $500 REDDAN, ED, NEW YORK, NY 10014 OBAMA, BARACKVIA OBAMA FOR AMERICA $500 DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE $250 Total Contributions: $1750.00 Republican $1000 Democrat $750 So a search using the Federal Elections Commission database generates more donations to Republicans than Tate cites and less for than Democrats than Tate cites for the Associated Press. Test 2: How about New York Times? Tate says $8143 to Democrats and $0 to Republicans. Repeating the test with the same parameters, one finds: MCCOY, RON MR., ATLANTA, GA 30306 MCCAIN, JOHN S. VIA JOHN MCCAIN 2008 INC. $200.00 MCGEE, CELIA, NEW YORK, NY 10023 OBAMA, BARACK VIA OBAMA FOR AMERICA $2300 TSCHINKEL, SIMON, NEW YORK, NY 10016 BIDEN, JOSEPH R JR VIA BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT, INC. $250 Total Contributions: $2750.00 Republican $200 Democrat $2500 (McGee, who does book, movie & theater reviews, likes Obama!) Again, a search using the Federal Elections Commission database generates more donations to Republicans than Tate cites and less for than Democrats than Tate cites for the New York Times. Test 3: Tate claims $104,184 for Democrats and $3150 for Republicans from NBC. NBC is an interesting case to do a test against the FEC database. One finds >>$40,600 (& that’s just through names that begin with the last letter “G”, I stopped there) goes to the GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (GEPAC), which historically contributes more to Republicans than Democrats. Do you think Tate included that data in his Op-Ed, or did he just tally it all into the Democrat column? Dick Ebersol alone has contributed $6900 to John McCain’s campaign. He’s also donated $4600 to Chris Dodd, $4600 to Hillary Clinton, & $4600 to Al Franken. (None to Barrack Obama) In the case of NBC, one individual has given more a Republican campaign than the total for the entire corporation that Tate claims. Test 4: How about one that Tate doesn’t include – the Washington Times? Same method produces the following results: EBERLY, CLARK, ALINGTON, VA 22204 ANDERSON, MARK (R-AZ) VIA MARK ANDERSON FOR CONGRESS $210 JOO, DOUGLAS, BOWIE, MD 20715 ANDERSON, MARK VIA MARK ANDERSON FOR CONGRESS $2300 SUTCLIFFE, WILLIAM, WASHINGTON, DC 20004 BROWNBACK, SAMUEL DALE VIA BROWNBACK FOR PRESIDENT INC $500 Total Contributions: $3010.00 Republican $3010 Democrat $0 Tate doesn’t include that in his figures. Why? And, yes, if one searches the FEC database for Fox/Fox News one does find contributions to John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Ron Paul (as opposed to the $0 Tate claims). If one wants to do a true leftist media source, query “Democracy NOW”, which finds $500 to Obama’s campaign. $0 to Republicans. Additionally if one looks at overall contributions to individual candidates (excluding partisan & non-partisan PACs), per the FEC, the ratio is close to 2:1 for Democratic candidates in the Presidential election. It would not be unreasonable to observe the same basic ratio within any given employment field. (2) Selection bias: There also seem to be a few major media sources not included, such as the Wall Street Journal. (3) Final line technique: Even if one uncritically accepts the Tate’s figures & analysis, the headline “100:1” is misleading and inaccurate. “An analysis [Tate’s] of federal records shows that the amount of money journalists contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans. That’s the overall ratio according to Tate’s (selective) analysis. Where did Tate get the 100:1 ratio? He acknowledges selectively eliminating Rudy Giuliani. What else? The 100:1 ratio is the last line of the Op-Ed, a technique to leave the writer’s intended message in your mind. Nevermind if it’s true or not, in this case it’s not per Tate’s own figures. If one wants to believe Tate’s message, one can choose to weigh or rationalize the data however one wants. These are the benefits and risks of a free press and free distribution of rhetoric - ya get both Penn & Teller … and “Loose Change.” The data – as always, I encourage folks to go re-do it yourself: change the parameters, see what you get – doesn’t support Tate’s claims. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Hint, for those who haven't figured out to whom I am referring: he was also the only US President to have a received a patent. /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. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Remember when the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis collapsed in August 2007? The July 2008 report of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Bridging the Gap: Restoring and Repairing the Nation’s Bridges found that “One in four of our bridges are rated as deficient, either in need of repair or in need of widening to handle today’s traffic.” Estimates that “more than $140 billion will be needed to fix them.” “Many of the nation’s large-scale bridges have become chokepoints on the country's freeway system and a drain on the nation’s economy. The top 10 highway interchange bottlenecks cause an average of 1.5 million truck hours of delay each year.” That’s just bridges, highways, sewers, water, and other basic infrastructure are also in need of upgrade and repair. May be a modern example of tragedy of the commons? If we had to pay directly for it, would anyone put up with the congestion on I-495, aka the Capital Beltway; almost all of I-95 from north of Boston to Richmond VA; I-10 in Houston; I-405 in from San Fernando Valley in north LA County to Orange County, aka the San Diego Freeway, even tho’ it doesn’t extend to SD; I-90/94 in Chicago; or I-880 on the east Bay of San Francisco? Sen Obama on Strengthening America’s Transportation Infrastructure I can’t find anything related specifically to infrastructure on Sen McCain’s site. Found this page from About.com on “John McCain’s Views on Infrastructure” … but would prefer to compare directly Sen McCain’s policy proposals (similar page from About.com on “Barack Obama’s Views on Infrastructure”). If someone knows of something, please share. Similarly could not find anything on former Rep Bob Barr’s site. Do you consider the state of the nation’s infrastructure to be important? Should the US Presidential candidates be addressing the deficits? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

He was a failed businessman. He lost his first campaign. He had 8 years experience in a State legislature. He lost two successive campaigns. He had 2 years experience in the US House of Representatives. He was considered a great orator by those who agreed with him. He had zero executive experience. Would you vote for a Presidential candidate with that background? VR/Marg P.s. Post was inspired by a comment by Joseph Nye [former Chair National Intelligence Council (NIC), former Assistant Secretary of Defense, former Deputy Undersecretary of State, and Professor in the Harvard School of Government] during the Q&A period of a talk he gave at the London School of Economics. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That is not definitive. The link I posted indicates otherwise, and that OEF/OIF made it more appealing to Libya, but not solely due to risk of their own regime change, but because they decided no to get in bed with al Qaeda. Were we looking at the same link? Hochman's article is pretty clear that OIF/OEF was quarternary (at best), probably a quinary or senary factor. In the recomendations for policymakers, does the author advocate military invasion or other hard power action? (No.) As I wrote last night, the problem is the binary light-switch approach to US foreign policy -- characterizing the choices as either (a) wussy, liberal appeasement, or (b) strong military intervention/use of hard power. That foreign policy approach forces one to a very narrow tool box and discards a whole array of other tools that have been effective, as Hochman detailed in her AWC Parameters article you cited. To paraphrase my favorite PhD historian, the US needs to learn to put & use more tools in our toolbox. Not to take them away, including hard power options. We invented them and we've got the intellectual capacity. Use them all. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for that link. That's a well-written and concise piece. I could have just linked to that piece last night. Yes. Q'addafi is much more of a secularist but moreso a nationalist. Economics are significant drivers. Al Qa'eda is a different very different movement. The DPRK is a case in which a Libya model has applicability. Iran is more complicated. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

So, if I understant your reply correctly, those military actions may have played a part in Lybia's surender of its nuke program. Correct? (I understatnd it may be years, if ever, that we will know for sure) No, it's unlikely that the invasion of Iraq had any significant direct impact on Libya's choices. The negotiations began well before Jan 2001. (It's not a better of who gets 'credit' - I care a lot less who gets credit than that the strategic interests of the US were advanced and a state proliferator of nuclear, chemical, and (desired) biological agents turned back. It's the chronology - something that happened before (diplomatic re-engagement between US & Libya and negotiations on disarmament can't be influenced by something that happened after (OIF). And learning from the means by which it was accomplished.) The activtity associated with preparing for & building the case for OIF (Iraq) may have been a distractor to keep the attention of ideologically-driven political appointees focused away from Libya (because they were focused on building the case for invading Iraq). Therefore relatively (to political appointees) lower-level career civil servants (GS-14/15) and SES's could execute work in support of the US national strategies. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's a reasonable question ... & policy wonks have speculated on it. As I responded to Max, negotiations began before January 2001. The role that the terrorist attacks of 9/11. OEF (Afghanistan), and preparations for OIF (Iraq) and start of OIF are speculative. My opinion is that the level of focus and attention that high level political appointees within the State Department were putting toward building, vetting, and making the case against Iraq enabled realist diplomacy to occur in support of the administration's policies. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Maybe not, but the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did. ...and when he came in from the cold, Qaddafi didn't go to the UN, he did so through channels to CIA and MI6. You are correct that it was through the intelligence community ... and through diplomatic channels (aka State Dept). Discussions/negotiations began during the 2nd half of the Clinton adminstration, however. There are speculations regarding the role that preparations for OIF in 2002 may have played -- more that preparations and focused interest on Iraq enabled career civil serveants to execute administration policy with limited ideological interference from early political appointees. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No revisionist history. Just realist. And putting US strategic interests and security first. What benefit to US strategic interest was Q'addafi accelerating his covert nuclear and chemical weapons programs? Attempting to get an offensive biological program going? Increasing state sponsorship of terrorism: admittedly to the bombing of Pan Flight 103 (Lockerbie), allegedly supporting the hijacking of Pan Am Flight 73 by Abu Nidal? Increasing illict arms deals (sales to other non-state actors)? Being complicit in the kidnapping and execution of at least half-dozen American and British nationals in the Middle East immediately after the strike? And trying to pay (~$2.5M. iirc) inner city American gangs to commit terror against US citizens? The air strikes may have annoyed and frustrated Libya -- that's not the point of a US foreign policy that I would advocate. Would you? Again, the 1986 airstrike did not induce Libya to abandon its nuclear and chemical weaposn programs or to renounce support of international terrorism. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No. It actually further strengthens my argument.- thanks! That strike was largely counterproductive. (We've already discussed the strike.) What was the result of the 1986 airstrikes? Libya withdrew, increased tacit & financial support of terrorists, increased illicit arms sales, and accelerated their offensive nuclear and chemical programs. Was that productive toward US interests? (No.) It took almost ten years before Libya was willing to re-engage. Soft power combined with sanctions gave us what may be the single most successful foreign policy endeavor of the GW Bush administration and that's fabulous! Give them credit! VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How much state funding do you think there is for abortion? Since 1983 the Hyde Amendment limits Medicaid funding for abortions only to cases of rape, incest, &/or life endangerment. The currrent US policy, known as the “global gag rule,” prevents federal funding of any organization that is involved in work providing, promoting, or even discussing abortion services, even when that work is funded from non-US sources. This negatively affected AIDS prevention and treatment programs/groups and anti-child prostitution/child trafficking efforts/groups (because the groups might also discuss abortion even if being funded by non-federal or non-US entities). Ironically, the "global gag rule" has also been found to contribute to increase in *unsafe* abortions. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Uhm, how's the EU making out with Russia and Iran? Not to mention North Korea. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating war, but there has to be credible deterrence. Neither Obama nor Biden will have that. Or how about other examples: Libya abandoned and dismantled their offensive nuclear and chemical weapons programs after prolonged diplomactic interactions, sanctions, and incentives to rejoin the international community. Sec of State Rice departed today for a trip that will take her to Libya. She is the first US Sec of State since Dulles (1953) to go to Libya. (The last high ranking US official to go to Libya was VP Nixon in 1957.) Sen Obama and Sen Biden are more likely to be able to exert diplomatic 'soft' power. Foreign policy and diplomacy is not an "on-off" switch/binary function where the only two possible positions are appeasement or military intervention. (Have we forgotten the lesson of winning the Cold War? How did the first Pres Bush respond to the fall of the Berlin wall?) As the metaphor goes, if the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail; if the only foreign policy response is (threat of) hard power/military intervention the only foreign policy option looks like invasion. Soft power does not mean disregard the importance of hard power capabilities. Iran is a big issue. A very big issue. It is my opinion that they are pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program in addition to a more overt (when they're forced to be) nuclear energy program. Keeping Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state, imo, should be among the top foreign policy goal for the US because it is a strategic threat to the US & our allies. What part of the current policy is not working? Everytime US policy makes the issue about Ahmadinejad, he benefits as he is perceived as the maverick fighting the goliath (), which enables Ahmadinejad to isubstantiate his base and to not address Iran's domestic problems, which are many. We will never know what may have been the outcome had the US responded to the May 2003 overture from the Iranian Foreign Ministry (their version of the State Dept) sent via the Swiss. It was rebuked (to put it diplomatically). We didn’t even respond. Here’s a copy of what was sent to the State Dept’s Near East desk. An additional account from the Jerusalem Post "US rejected Iranian overtures in 2003" & another from the Jewish Daily Forward. (I intentionally chose to cite 2 sources that would not have any perceivable pro-Iran bias.) The conservative American Prospect commented that “Iran’s historic proposal for a broad diplomatic agreement should have prompted high-level discussions over the details of an American response.” Amb Richard Haass (a realist), who advised SecState Colin Powell (a realist) as Director of Policy Planning and who was Special Assistant to Pres. GHW Bush (a hardcore realist) and senior director for Near East and South Asian affairs on National Security Council, has publicly stated that the Iranian overture was rejected because in the current administration “the bias was toward a policy of regime change” (the neo-conservative position). Dr. Flynt Leverett, former senior director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council, counterterrorism expert on State Policy Planning Staff, & CIA senior analyst, called the May 2003 entrée a “respectable effort” to start negotiations with the US. COL Larry Wilkerson, USA (ret) and former Chief of Staff for SecState Powell, said that it was a significant proposal for beginning “meaningful talks” between the US and Iran but that it “was a non-starter so long as Cheney was Vice President and the principal influence on Bush.” His version of events is that State supported the offer, however, “as soon as it got to the Vice President’s office, the old mantra of ‘We don’t talk to evil‘… reasserted itself” and Cheney’s office rejected it." Former SecState Powell has commented publically: “My position in the remaining year and a half [of his tenure as SecState] was that we ought to find ways to restart talks with Iran. But there was a reluctance on the part of the president to do that.” [W/r/t/ subsequent characterization of efforts by him and his deputies to deal with Tehran and Damascus as failures, Powell notes] “I don't like the administration saying, ‘Powell went, Armitage went ... and [they] got nothing.’ We got plenty.” “You can't negotiate when you tell the other side, ‘Give us what a negotiation would produce before the negotiations start’.” Days later after that attempt was rejected, Iran proposed a more limited exchange of al-Qaeda prisoners for MEK prisoners, which was rejected too. To be explicit, Iran’s behavior is not motivated because they want to be an upstanding member of the international community, imo. They’re driven by competition for (scarce) resources in a struggle for power among competitors and struggle for regional influence. We are one of the competitors. They’re also driven by history and religious fundamentalism. And the point is not to be an apologist for Iran (hell, no!), but to illustrate with enough credible conservative realist voices (as opposed to neoconservative) how much isn’t in the dialogue. And how far conservative realist foreign policy differs from neoconservative. Sen McCain's chief foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, is part of the PNAC foreign policy team; he is not a traditional realist Republican. The critical issues is maximizing the likelihood of accomplishing US foreign policy goals. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for that acknowledgement. The US Census Bureau numbers are what they are; they're not "mine." My observation was zero boarded up houses on a four mile visual inventory of inner city Atlanta, which logically eliminates "boarded up crack houses." That was your metric not mine. By what rationale do you disregard the numbers from Atlanta's Economic Empowerment Zone, which was one of the original six Urban Empowerment Zones created by the Clinton administration in 1993 to target revitalization of urban cities (i.e., the subject of this sub-thread) and that have expanded in the Bush administration: Hmmm...sounds like 4 out of 20 to me. I'll concede the "crack house" reference if you'll concede 4 out of 20 I've shown that assumptions and causation that you've claimed are not valid. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

There's a good bit of truth and perception in what you write. The differentiation between them is rarely clear & often variable. But in the end truth-to-perception drives a lot of choices. To ignore that is an ineffective strategy. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That was a neat read. I probably would not have seen it otherwise. Thanks for the link. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Am I the only one wondering strategy on what? (Nevermind on what basis or how excellence is determined.) Here's a discussion from February on Sen McCain's foreign policy, defense policy, national security. I would be very interested in comparing or seeing any changes over the interim. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Isn't Legionnaires disease (or Legionellosis) named after the members of the veterans group, the American Legion, who were staying in the Pittsburgh (or Philadelphia ?) hotel who first contracted it? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In reading through this thread, it prompted me to think about both my writing and speaking styles. I can identify at least four different writing styles. (1) Memo: terse & concise. Emphasis on conveying the “So What? Who Cares?” Strictly follow written material guidelines. (2) Scholarly: formal language and grammar. Detailed, extensively detailed. Rarely, if ever, written from first person. (3) Op-ed: less formal, more conversational. This most closely resembles the majority of my writing style used on SC. (4) Informal-close personal: Violation of standard written spelling is not uncommon, e.g., use “z” to indicate possessive (“nerdgirlz iPod”) and “x” for plural (“folkx,”). Lots of ellipses. Recognized styles (2)-(4) ten years ago. I’ve added (1) in the interim. Use (4) a lot less. My biggest grammar objection/peeve (constrained to usage in the first two styles) is insertion of commas before conjunctions connecting dependent phrases (as opposed to independent clauses). Comma over-use is rampant. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

From where did you pull that figure? What is your basis for "knowing"? You do realize that you’re claiming 20-25% of houses are “boarded up crack houses,” yes? When was the last time you were in a city? Vacancies are tracked by the US Census & other agencies. 2007 vacancy for urban area across the US: the highest vacancy rate is 7.4% for Orlando FL. Next highest is Las Vegas, NV (4.9%). Atlanta (4.7%). Detroit (4.1%). NYC (2.1%). SF (1.3%). Riverside-San Bernardino (3.8%). LA (1.6%). Houston (3.1%). Not even coming close to 20-25% figure for vacancies. “Boarded up” is some subset of all vacancies, so that number will be smaller, can’t say how much smaller but definitely less than 20%. And “boarded up crack houses” is an even smaller subset. In Atlanta’s 13 poorest neighborhoods (an 8.4 sq mile area through which my Saturday morning walk took me), the vacancy rate (again the larger set to which ‘boarded up houses’ and ‘boarded up crack houses’ are smaller subsets) declined from a high of 14% in 1990 to 9.8%. Out of curiosity, this morning I called & spoke with Officer Ron Campbell of the Atlanta Police Department Public Affairs and asked if there was any area of inner city Atlanta in which there was 20-25% “boarded up crack houses.” His response was “No … no place in Atlanta has that number of crack houses [emphasis on crack houses].” He went on to say that he thought areas of SW Atlanta may be approaching 20% vacancy due to foreclosures. Not crack houses or vacancy caused by other illegal drug activity. Officer Campbell did indicate that there is concern that houses left due to foreclosure may be attractive nuisances for illegal activity and that the APD was increasing patrols of areas with high foreclosure induced vacancy rates for that reason. Proximal factor, makes sense. Nonetheless … do you have any counter evidence or anecdotal observation (as ‘anecdotal evidence’ is an oxymoron) to support the 20-25% boarded up crack house claim? I'm almost more curious as to what was the thought process that led to that assertion. How did you come to "know" that? And "know" with such asserted authority? Was it anecdotal? Print or other news media? (Which ones?) What was the process? (It's epistomological - 'how do you know what you know.') VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, comprehensive sex education has done that. Based On the Research, Comprehensive Sex Education Is More Effective At Stopping the Spread of HIV Infection: Research Shows That Abstinence-Only Programs Have Limited Effectiveness And Unintended Consequences Comprehensive Sex Education Is Effective Research has identified highly effective sex education and HIV prevention programs that affect multiple behaviors and/or achieve positive health impacts. Behavioral outcomes have included delaying the initiation of sex as well as reducing the frequency of sex, the number of new partners, and the incidence of unprotected sex, and/or increasing the use of condoms and contraception among sexually active participants.[4,5,6,7] Long-term impacts have included lower STI and/or pregnancy rates. [4,5,6,7] Evaluations of comprehensive sex education and HIV/ STI prevention programs show that they do not increase rates of sexual initiation, do not lower the age at which youth initiate sex, and do not increase the frequency of sex or the number of sex partners among sexually active youth.[4,5,6,7,14,15] Between 1991 and 2004, the U.S. teen birth rate fell from 62 to 41 per 1,000 female teens.[16,17] Some experts attribute 75 percent of the decline to increased contraceptive use and 25 percent to delayed initiation of sex.[18] Others credit increased contraceptive use and delayed initiation of sex about equally.[19] Regardless, contraceptive use has been critical to reducing teenage pregnancy. [References] Sex Education Linked To Delayed Teen Intercourse “Male teens who received sex education in school were 71 percent less likely — and similarly educated female teens were 59 percent less likely — to have sexual intercourse before age 15. Males who attended school, meanwhile, were 2.77 times more likely to rely upon birth control the first time they had intercourse if they had been in sex-education classes.” It is correct that abstinence-only education has had less than desired or advertised results: “A robust systematic review finds no evidence that such programmes reduce risky sexual behaviours, incidence of sexually transmitted infections, or pregnancy.” VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying