Comments Posted By Drongo
Displaying 91 To 100 Of 246 Comments
"YOU VILL DO VUT I SAY AND BE HEALTHY, EH <em>SCHWEINHUND?"</em>
"I don’t care if the “penalties†are mild or not. The idea that compulsion of any kind is involved smacks of tyranny."
What, the liberty not to get a letter? My point, equally simple, is that the penalty of getting a letter reminding you to attend is *not* a penalty in any meaningful sense.
But then I'm a foreigner, so what would I know...
Comment Posted By Drongo On 4.09.2007 @ 01:23
This seems a little extreme. We have a requirement to go for, say, smear tests at regular intervals. The penalty for missing them is a letter in six months time reminding you that you missed your smear. We have the same for breast screening, the penalty being exactly the same.
The relevant point is that such things are provided by default with the expectation that you will attend, and most people do.
And we know that you have a clearer mind than to honestly believe what you wrote. You know full well what he meant in this case.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 3.09.2007 @ 18:14
Good luck to you. At least you got a warning.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 25.08.2007 @ 01:26
9/11 TRUTHERS GUT PUNCHED BY HISTORY CHANNEL
Excellent. Looney theories deserve a good debunking.
Speaking as one who used to obsessively partake of evolution / creationism debates, I doubt that people who are completely emotionally invested in the conspiracy will change their minds but you never know.
What always struck me as amusing (in a black sort of way) was the idea that Bush et al were capable of conducting this fakery. The awesome level of competence, planning and secrecy is beyond almost anyone but the Bush crew? Pah!
That and the way that people could even carry on with the nonsense after the Popular Mechanics article and the obvious fact that demolishing buldings is not something that can be done covertly.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 21.08.2007 @ 10:39
HOW SERIOUS IS THE FINANCIAL CRISIS?
"Don’t ask me. I don’t have a clue."
I don't think anyone has really. I suspect that is most of the problem. As I understand it the idea was to spread risk on loans throughout the financial system so that when something went wrong it was so dispersed that it didn't bring down big players and could be contained.
The trouble is that this was perceived as lowering the risk, and that along with the easy liquidity being liberally sloshed around the world and low interest rates (to encourage growth after 911) it encouraged reckless lending. This reckless lending has now, rather inevitably, proved to have been a bad move.
At this point, if things were playing by the old rules, a few banks would go under, lots of mortgage companies would go under, we would all suffer a bit for a couple of years and people would eventually get over it.
The thing that has people running for the most secure form of cash is that because of the spread of the bad risk, nobody quite know who has lost how much. You could be holding stick that is going to tank instantly if it turns out that its CDO (Or, God help us CDO squared) is made up of bad debt. But it may not.
So you aren't alone. The market is flustered because everyone is trying to make the best moves in the dark. That's why, rather than seeing the whole thing go down, you are seeing these big drops, followed by liquidity injections, followed by rallies. The day starts with everyone being scared and running for their security blanket, then daddy turns up and gives everyone a big cuddle and makes them feel that maybe it is going to be alright, then smart people think "Hey it went down but it didn't have to, I should buy!" and up it goes again.
Nobody's tried this before you see, it is a new phenomenon. I'm a grouch so I think that, ultimately, the fiction is going to fall to pieces and we'll be in a godawful sitution. Money these days, as far as I can tell, is entirely hallucinatory. The thing that probably makes me wrong is that it in in the interests of everybody in the entire system to pretend that the Emperor's clothes are lovely. If everyone dreams the same dreams at the same time, maybe it all hold together.
Or we could be in for a hell of a credit crunh / inlationary spiral that is out of control of everyone.
"Whatever Chairman of the Fed Ben Bernanke does, I sure hope he acts quickly and that whatever his prescription is, works."
So does he, I suspect. He's only really got one option available to him, keep pouring liquidity into the system and hope that it bouys it up. Good luck to him.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 16.08.2007 @ 18:27
TIGHTENING THE GORDIAN KNOT OF WAR
I agree with you entirely, which should probably concern you :)
Of course, the diplomatic tack is fruitless in the current configuration as well, primarily because it is set up to fail. It is obvious to all that accomodating and coming to terms with the Iranian regieme is simply not an option for the US. The Iranians can object until they are blue in the face that they are not developing nuclear weapons, they can protest until the cows come home that they need the electricity in order to provide power to their people in a world where oil is rapidly becoming too expensive to use at home. It makes no difference. They are developing nukes, and they are basically at war with the US already, in the eyes of the US administration.
Possibly the alternative route to take would be to be more friendly with them rather than more opposed. Without the useful "Great Satan" whacking post the Iranian leadership would be even more distanced from their population. Hell, you want to monitor their nuclear facilities? Maybe you should help build them. You want to stop them interfering in Iraq? Maybe co-operate with them. Whack them with the best message that you have "If your leaders are so great, how come you haven't all got iPods and decent TV?".
It isn't going to fix the world but at least it might not smash it up.
Still, if things go the Cheney way, we'll get some more great guncam shots at least.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 16.08.2007 @ 06:12
"The actor also told the Idaho Statesman that the CIA’s use of water boarding is an erosion of our American values."
Is he seriously arguing that it isn't?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 14.08.2007 @ 02:05
WAR CZAR: "IT'S A LITTLE DRAFTY IN THIS BASEMENT..."
"Right now we hav no credible military deterent to Russia and it is unlikely the US military could stand up to China."
Don't you have a whole bunch of nuclear weapons sitting in silos and subs?
Comment Posted By Drongo On 12.08.2007 @ 01:43
I think that I may have found the source for the "AlQ in Iran" stuff (because it certainly isn't in the released portions of the NIE);
http://www.nysun.com/article/58507
While I have no evidence against any of this, nor evidence in favour of it, I would note that the author has been a relentless supporter of both action against Iran and the Iraq war, so can hardly be called unbiased.
So, what we seem to actually have is a claim to have access to a classified document that confirms what both the author and certain factions in the Bush administration want to see.
The released portions of the NIE are completely silent on this matter as far as I can tell.
http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20070717_release.pdf
So it seems that, rather than arguing on the basis of what the NIE says, you are in fact arguing on the basis of what a reporter sympathetic to an attack on Iran says an unnamed source says that the classified portions of the NIE says.
Now that's more like it.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.07.2007 @ 04:57
"It’s much easier to bury your heads in the sand and pretend that the bad guys are in the US government and not in the ME."
As for this sort of attitude, have you really not cottoned onto the fact that just about everyone thinks that they are the good guys? Hitler, Stalin and Mao (about as gruesome a trimverate of evil as you could imagine) all thought of themselves as the good guys. Hitler saw himself as both protecting civilization against communism and other Jewish consipiracies, Stalin saw himself as protecting Russia from Hitler and then as trying to make Russia into the power that it should be in order to become an advanced state. Mao was even more messianic, trying to remould an old and decaying culture into something fair and equitable for the Chinese people. Of course, they were all monsters, but they didn't see themselves that way.
So when you say "pretend that the bad guys are in the US government" I reject the whole notion of worrying about who thinks that are the good guys and who they think are the bad guys and look at intentions and capabilities. It should be clear to anyone what the Bush admins intentions are at this point, and it should be equally clear what their capabilities are. They want the creation of as many pro-US regimes in the ME as possible, but they are only capable of creating vast death and destruction. The result of allowing them to have their way will be death and destruction whatever their intentions, and whether you want to consider that to be good or bad is purely up to you.
Comment Posted By Drongo On 18.07.2007 @ 03:51
