Johnny Coli

Considered, or purchased and implemented? Why would you pay that kind of money for anything that is going to fail 9 times out of 10 when you take it out of the box? And they want to use it for border "security"? If unmanned drones are the wave of the future for patrolling the US border, then by all means consider how this new technology could be used legally. But why should the US taxpayers pay for them before they get to the stage where their reliability and effectiveness is more in line with their cost? Maybe I'm completely wrong. Maybe nine out of ten false positives is acceptable for something that costs twice as much money as what's already in place. What the hell do I know? You tell me why this is a stupid question to ask?

From the link: 90% false positive is unreliable. Costing twice as much as what they currently use is not worth the money. Unreliable for twice as much money is inefficient. You're completely right, though. Those are my words.

As a former line cook, I'll add that this is not a good weekend to go to brunch. You've been warned. An even worse weekend is the one where you give the cooks an extra hour to drink the night before. File that one for reference.

Holy Cow! All this time I've been waiting for the Bush Surveillence Drones to invade my privacy, when I should have been looking out for the Libertarian Mind Control beams. That explains the recent urge to hoard guns and tear up my IRS form.

And I apologize for the tone of my response to you. Whether or not he's opposed to their use doesn't take away from the fact that as they currently stand, wrt reliability and efficiency, they aren't worth the money. Where are all the fiscal conservatives on this board? I can't believe that I, a progressive liberal Dem, am the one shouting loudest about government waste.

I wouldn't necessarily have a problem if the costs came down, and efficiency went up. 90% false positive rate is insane, even if it did cost less than what's currently in place. But why should they pay a shitload of money for something that's pretty ineffective? When the technology makes them more affordable, then get them (how's that for fiscal responsibility, Ken?), but why get them now? You're paying for a false sense of security. If the drones are limited to border surveillence, and there were acceptable restrictions in place, (ie how much of a pain in the ass will their presence taking off and landing in commercial airspace be; how will they reconcile filing flight plans with the FAA [the one article said the issue was the FAA wants a 30 day notice, the Patrol wants to launch at their own discretion]; what is the Border Patrol's jurisdiction wrt US citizens; what limitation on their use will there be), then I wouldn't have a problem with them patrolling the borders. My problem lies with what was alluded to in the other articles about using drones for crowd control, and "to supplement surveillence capabilities on the ground". I'm not an idiot. These things are (or can be) equipped with more than cameras (no, I'm not talking weapons). I don't like the idea of any administration potentially using these to "observe" US citizens inside the US borders. Like I said, what will the use restrictions be? Who's authorized to use them? Just the Border Patrol? Who is on the oversight of their use? The Justice Department? DHS? NSA? Why is it so freaking unamerican to ask these types of questions? Like it or not, unless you're George W. Bush or Alberto Gonzales, you need a warrant to get around the "reasonable expectation of privacy" issue, even though in a lot of cases you don't need a direct line of sight through a window to "observe" someone with today's technology. In sum, I have no problem with your expensive, unreliable, inefficient drone provided they only patrol the border.

I'll go one further. Because you linked to a pdf file, which most people aren't going to open and read, I'll paste in the bit on UAVs (it was on page 8, or "ocho" for all the illegals that will cross over the boarder while the drone leads the Border Patrol to a rabbit warren)... Additional note added as edit: As for the ABC "interpretation", there wasn't one. The quote in the ABC report was from Richard Skinner, Department of Homeland Security inspector general. I share your horror that the liberal media has infiltrated a high-level post at DHS, though. Have they no shame?

So my pointing out that the proposed system that you want to impliment costs more and sucks means I'm unprincipled and want to open up our borders? Seems like a pretty big leap there, Paul. What was it that Ken menioned (edit sic: mentioned) in the other thread? Throwing money at a problem?

Skipping over the possible Fourth Amendment abuses that using a drone to monitor US citizens might result in (Hey, but who cares as long as you're not doing anything wrong), are they cost effective, or even more reliable than what we currently have? The ones that have been tested (by the Border Patrol I might add ) are not considered very cost effective. In adition, the Pentagon is questioning their reliability. Okey dokey. So, not only are they unreliable, they are costly. In fact they cost more than manned flights, and may even be less effective because of the tendency to register a high number of false positives (90% false positives!!!!). I'm sold! Let's have a really expensive, unreliable toy flying around US airspace generating false alarms. I don't see any problems there.

Just doing a bit of yardwork in the dead of night, Wacka. How's the Manifesto coming?

I was assuming that the drones had other capabilities, ones that would be a bit more advanced than a pair of binoculars. EDIT: Frome the article...(emphasis mine) Seems like a pretty vague statement. Look, I'm not being some paranoid nut. You know better than I what the drones are capable of carrying for equipment and technology (wave for the camera Osama). In the possibility that they would ever get used, what constraints on their use would there be? Would they require a warrant to be deployed? Why is it out of the realm of possibility that an administration such as the Bush Admin, whose record with regards to civil rights is a bit, shall we say, sketchy, wouldn't use them indescriminently?

Makes about as much sense as others having no problem because it's cheap. I don't think your "radar on the side of the road vs. behind a bush" argument is applicable. I've tried to do a search for the case law making it legal, but can't find anything. Maybe if Mickey's lurking he can chime in through me via PM. That being said, a road is not personal private property. I don't think you could extrapolate from traffic enforcement radar that it's cool to use surveillence drones on people in their homes. I am assuming we're talking about using drones for warrentless spying. So, my feeling on the matter would be to not have them flying around at all. Unless you have a specific target and have a specific warrant to use the drone on that target. No way do I want unmanned drones trolling for criminal activity. Of course, the Bush Admin is arguing that no warrant is necessary when fighting their war, so I'm sure the point is moot. To sum: Radar on the side of the road behind a bush is OK. Radar in the air endorsed by a Bush is not OK.

The helicopter drowns out the creepy music. The drone invades your privacy.

The city sidewalk is public domain is where I believe you're going with this argument, and I'd be walking around in plain site. But if the sattelites are already there, why would you need a surveillence drone? I'm assuming these surveillence drones have more capabilities. Am I right? Would they need to get a warrant to use these? Ha! What am I saying? Of course you don't, as long as it's for fighting the GWoT.

Holy Cow! How'd I miss this thread? Where's that link to the US Constitution I had laying around? It blows my mind that people would be OK with government spy drones flying all over the US. "I'm not doing anything wrong, so I have nothing to hide." Would you be cool with a cop just walking into your house when you're at work? You'd be cool with it because you haven't done anything wrong, right? What if they said they wanted to do random house-to-house searches in order to "fight the GWOT"? No problem, you've got nothing to hide right? Both extreme examples, to be sure, but I hope people would question the "unmanned surveillence drones" with the same incredulity that they would letting the government into their own houses.

I don't see how increasing health care benefits (and other benefits; that section of the "agenda" is very detailed) for returning veterans is "toss[ing] money at them." It's not a bribe. Hell, I'm for getting healthcare benefits to everyone, not just the vets, but it's a good start, considering all the cuts the Bush admin proposed. The money was there before we went into Iraq. I have a bit more faith in the Dems than you do in their ability to spend more wisely once they get control(). It's not a retreat if you set a reasonable exit strategy. How is it cutting and running if you're handing a country back to it's own people? The Bushies shot themselves in the ass with the "mission accomplished" nonsense, and their absurd PR war that everything is just rosey over there. "The insurgency is in it's last throes" comes to mind. Every time we see a purple finger waving in the air it's THE big milestone election that puts them on the right track. It would be a joke if people weren't dying by the busload. Set a reasonable timeline, and stick to it. No one says it has to be six months. Level with the american people, and stop feeding us this crap about how the insurgents are waiting for us to withdraw. Waiting for what? To go back to Syria? It's not like it's a secret that they're there. We see them running across our TVs every night at 6:00. You guys are always preaching "personal responsibility". Scale it up to include "national responsibility." To be honest, I don't think the Bushies "want" the Iraqis to decide who their own leaders are. It would be a colossal failure if that country became another dictatorial theocracy. So let's spend another couple hundred billion and sit through 12 more elections until we get a leader in there we like. I expect that they're just as frustrated as the american people. I'd like to think that the people in the military don't by into the administrations nonsense that if you don't support the "war", you 're not supporting the troops. I would think they'd be pleased as hell to get additional resources and get OBL. Wouldn't that be great? To actually commit resources to getting the guy responsible for 9-11? I bet morale would be pretty freaking high after that. If it's a long-term solution, don't do a song and dance routine after a couple of weeks telling us it's been a huge success. I'm not scared of unpleasant things. I'm concerned that we were flat-out lied to, ran in without international support, and are stuck there. That's unpleasant. If it's going to take ten years, be a man and tell us it's going to take ten years. Don't feed us the line that "the insurgents are waiting for us to leave." I wasn't aware that the insurgents were dictating our foreign policy in the region. Someone should tell Condi. Maybe they can iron this out over a couple gyros. You know what, I'm all for getting those Dems out of office, then. There is a progressive movement in the party that the old guard is none to happy with. They don't think Dean is moving in the right (left) direction with his 50 state, grass/net roots push. It's time for a sea-change in the party, but it's not going to happen overnight. One election at a time. I'd rather see the GOP crime bosses bounced out first, though. But that's just me.

I mentioned some already in the previous post. 21st Century Military: You and I are never going to agree on the money issue. The complaint, I believe, is how the money is being spent. This item is moot, because your point of view on spending is never going to coincide with mine. WoT: How is Afganistan getting "finished" by the current methods? They just had an international incident over a death sentence for a guy who converted to Christianity. Sounds like a regular paradise over there. It's a good thing we overthrew the oppressive religious regime they had running their country. Increasing size of special forces relates to the previous item. You use "spending" as a four-letter word. I say spending can be done wisely, and never the two shall meet. Intelligence free from political presure: no pressure from the WH on that pre-war intelligence, right? As for working hand-in-hand with our international buddies...that's laughable. The Bush admin's "with us or against us" really strikes a heartfelt response from the international community, don't it? Human rights: Aren't the Bushies arguing that non-US citizens have no rights? No need for improvement there. The last two items are a wash, IMO. In sum, actually finish the job in Afganistan, ie redirect resources away from Iraq and concentrate them there. Isn't there someone in Afganistan that we were trying to find a couple years ago? I can't seem to remember his name. I don't see the Dems using the heavy-handed tactics that this admin uses against our own intelligence people. You have to agree the international stuff can be improved on. Maybe you don't, and we can agree to disagree. Homeland Security: Screening 100% is probably unrealistic, but why not at least explore the idea, and there has to be room for improvement. I thought independent studies showed this was a security risk area for improvement? The Dems tried to increase spending for security in this area, and the GOP shot it down along party lines. We can spend hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq, but not spend it here? Also, I don't think they're saying "eliminate outsourcing to all foreign entities, just those with lousy track records. The exact wording is: We've already had the UAE debate. Saying the UAE port deal was sketchy got me called a racist. The Bush admin does not have a swell record when it comes to providing funding for the CDC, or working with scientists in general, for that matter. The GOP wants to spend money patrolling a border and putting up a fence? I think the money could be better spent. Once again, we're not going to agree on spending. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. Hell, let's just not spend a dime, right? Iraq: I don't see a draw-down and a hand-over to the Iraqis as a "retreat." They're a sovereign nation. What's the worst that could happen? A civil war? Destabilization? Guess what? It's already happening. Help from the international community isn't going to happen unless we ask, which this admin hasn't really attempted. Saying "This is the way it's going to be if you want to help" isn't getting it done. I firmly believe that Bush and his admin should be held responsible for this cluster!@#$. You can chalk it up to Bush Bad!!!, but, it fits here. I'm not going to lie...I'm for throwing the whole lot of them in prison. Energy Independence Once again, we're not going to agree on ANWR. I've got no problem with exploring other energy resources, and that includes looking to (and yes, funding wisely) research and development, and working with, not against, the scientific community. The Bush record on enlisting scientists' help is deplorable. Any scientist that disagrees with them gets run through the Rove Machine, and studies proving them wrong get re-worded, ignored or deleted. (There are plenty of links out there describing the Bush War on Science). There you go. Campaign contributions can be sent to ActBlue.

If you think that Katherine McPhee got the second-least amount of votes, then FOX has got you by the short ones, my freind. What a sham. But, I've got to hand it to them, they've got a great marketing strategy going. All that ploy does is get more people to vote. You can bet the McPhans are going to vote like crazy next week. You can bet that the fans of the other "safe" contestants will, too. They must have something going with Cingular tied in to "caller volume". It's all becoming clear. They got rid of The Most Complex And Dangerous Contestant To Ever Compete On American Idol last week. They induce hysteria this week. Next week there will be millions of people stabbing frantically at their cell phones trying to save their Idol at 9:01 PM. You have to admire the genius of the plan. "No one is safe." Chilling. It looked like Katherine was going to McPhaint on the stage last night. I loved the expression of total shock on Bucky's face. "Huh? What the hell just happened?" That was outstanding TV. I bet the production booth loooked like the NASA control room when they landed a tin can safely on the moon. High-fives, champagne, grown men crying. They'll be hard pressed to top that next week. Expect a "surprise" Idol in the bottom three every week now. Country week coming up. Nine left.

You're not going to get the transparent step-by-step ingredients list you want, Ken. This release is the first step in setting the agenda and platform. Your response is "It's rhetoric and typical status quo politics in an election year." I am not going to argue that point. I will, however, argue that this is a good first step in getting the dialog going, and away from "The Dems are soft on Security" that the GOP noise machine cranks out every time something like this comes up. That statement is completely false, as evidenced by the legislation and amendments the Dems list in the second link. WRT military spending, you (and I'm recalling this from memory only, because a TSW search would take too long to compile...if I'm wrong please set me straight) and others are always stating how the Clinton admin gutted the military, etc. So now the Dems add an increase in military and homeland security spending and it's a sh------- strategy? The Bush admin is spending hundreds of billions of dollars in Iraq. I thought the reconstruction was supposed to be funded with all that Iragi oil? I see nothing wrong with the Dems attempting to divert US dollars away from reconstruction and towards the US military. "But then the Dems can't B word about the crappy reconstruction of Iraq." bull sh--. They should be shouting it from the freaking rooftops. The Bush admin was warned repeatedly by people in the pre-war stage that this could be a disaster, didn't plan accordingly, and seemed to spend more time on a character assassination of their critics than they did planning for post-war Iraq. So the Bush plan of "We !@#$ed up but we're not admitting to that, give me more money" isn't working. The Bush plan of blaming the media isn't working. Unlike you, I don’t see anything wrong with exploring setting a realistic timetable for a draw-down and handing it over to the Iraqis and getting our military out of there. What’s gonna happen if they pull out? Civil war? A strategy for getting OBL should be to concentrate on OBL in Afganistan, and not waste billions of dollars in Iraq. I don’t see how invading Iraq stabilized that region, quite frankly, and I certainly don’t see the connection with getting OBL. Maybe I’m missing something? (GOP-leaning readers can insert the standard “Overthrew Saddam, freedom on the march” comment here.) I’m sure the Bush admin can make up some type of connection. They seem to be pretty good at connecting dots that aren’t there. I don’t think you have to be an expert on foreign affairs to see this is a mess. I’m most definitely not. However, I think the Dem “political” strategy of getting this all out in the open is a good thing, and will lead to real, concrete things getting done, rather than the standard “with us or against us, don’t ask questions” you typically get from the Bush admin/GOP spin team. Clearly, I’m in the minority on this board, but it doesn’t bother me. We all get one vote, and nothing I say on a sports message board is going to sway you, and nothing you say is going to sway me. Arguing over my ignorance of foreign affairs political strategy isn't going to change that.

Where in my reply to Tom am I "disrespecting" you? And where am I saying in that post that I know "much, much better than anyone has spent virtually a lifetime dealing with it."? I simply saw the thread, read two pages of posts bashing the Dems for not having an agenda with any substance, and not a single post linking to the item the posts were dumping on. So I linked to it. Am I shocked that you three think it's crap? Not at all. But to say that there isn't anything of substance at all in that second link is just plain wrong. All you guys do is B word that the Dems don't have a plan, the Dems don't know what they're doing, the Dems only have an anti-Bush platform. So the very day that they put something out, not only did not one of you link to it, but you spent two pages patting each other on the back saying what crap it was without reading it. Don't vote for a Dem candidate. Who cares? That's three votes in the Red column for you guys. Oh wait, sorry, you're all independents.

The first link is an outline. The second is a pretty comprehensive look at what they've been trying to do facing an uphill battle against the GOP. The outline is talking points...a brief list. You don't see any agenda in the second link? You don't see any list of accomplishments? You don't see any rationale for what they've been trying to accomplish, and will continue to act on? Did you even look at the second link?

I see two pages of posts stating that the Dems don't have a plan, but no actual link to the document. Here's the Security Plan Outline Here's a detailed Agenda, showing what they've done and tried to do faced with Republican opposition. Debate it if you will (and I'm sure it will be dismissed by this crowd), but to accuse them of having no meat behind this would be erroneous.

Wow. That was one of the most painful hours of TV I have sat through in a long time. And as such, this post will be excruciating for many of you, so proceed at your own risk. Forcing this show down to an hour even though there are still ten finalists makes for a rushed, unfocused sixty minutes of television. The song arrangements were abysmal, the judges were cranky or outright bored the entire night (Paula…uppers are red, downers are blue), and without the usual between-song, feel-good background stuff that makes the show campy and a target for ridicule (why the hell else would we watch this show?), it‘s reduced to crappy karaoke. Add in the fact that I’m still reeling from last week and Corporate Rock showing us who’s really pulling the strings by eliminating the most compelling and dangerous contestant this competition has ever seen, and we were due to be let down by this week’s torturous “talent” contest. Lisa Tucker is learning a valuable life lesson on AI. People suck and life isn’t fair. No matter what you do, your boss will still beat you down, and someone with less talent will always get promoted over you. You’re not quite enough of a loser to get our pity, and you’re not nearly good enough to get our begrudging respect. Welcome to the land of Mediocrity and Apathy. We’d embrace you, but the rest of us milquetoasts loathe what we’ve become and acknowledging you would only remind us of how we’re not going anywhere either. She could be on the way out this week, but we really don’t care because she means nothing to us. Kelli Pickler. There are a few rubes out there who are still duped, but the rest of us all have real idiots in our lives and sure as hell don’t have room for pretend ones. The vacant blonde pop-star thing has been done to death, and unless you can bring something new to the table, you will end up kneeling under it. She’s safe, though, because while there are plenty of blonde bimbos in entertainment, there are also plenty of horny teenage boys with cell phones. Ace Young. When he started pulling his shirt down my first thought was that he was going for a nipple shot. My second thought was that I was going for the remote because I don’t need to see Ace Young’s nipple on my TV. Then we saw the scar and my wife shouted, “Holy sh--! He shaved off his own nipple!” Awesome! Covais is gone, but what an outstanding plot development. One of the contestants is having a psychotic break and is skipping down the road to self-mutilation right in our living rooms. Watching a fairly decent-looking guy freak out on national TV and showing up each week with a new scar, a hideously self-shaved head, or missing an ear would make for riveting television. Alas, no such luck. It was a basketball (?) injury. I hate the mentally stable Ace Young even more now. Taylor Hicks. What does it say about this country when ten-year-old boys are dieing their hair grey? They already grow up too damn fast, and now they’re skipping adolescence and their roaring 20s and going straight to middle-aged boredom? No binge drinking? No dabbling with weird cults? Have we become too conservative? Societal musings aside, Taylor Hicks blows. All he had was the spazz dance, and he abandoned it for a fake leather jacket, designer jeans, and “singing.” A colossal blunder on his part. His whole thing was running around like a nut, whooping and hollering, and yelling “soul patrol” to everyone within earshot. We all assumed he could sing at least little, like we assume porn stars could “act” if really pressed. But we don’t watch porn for the acting, and no one will pay to see a fat guy with grey hair sing unless that fat guy with grey hair is also making an ass of himself. I like him even less now that I know he can’t sing. Mandisa. I’m a fairly smart, well-traveled person, but there are still plenty of things I have no idea about. Not only did I have no idea they made jeans in that size, but I don’t consider myself better for knowing it now. Two Easter hams parading around on stage singing gospel is not my idea of entertainment. But, like I said, there are a lot of things I’m ignorant about. Chris. Nice rehab job by FOX regarding last week’s rendition of “Walk the Line.” They barely had time this week to squeeze in all the commercials, yet they still made plenty of time to explain away the controversy. How about explaining why the most popular contestant in the history of the show was voted off last week because Corporate Rock and Roll was too scared of what he stood for? How about spending some time on that, FOX? Anyway, Daughtry is safe, of course, but I can’t stress enough that every week he sticks around is another nail in the coffin of his career. Katherine McPhee. (edited…the author is happily married) Bucky Covington. I thought he did a good job, and by God I’m rooting for this kid, now. Everyone else in this competition has something to fall back on. Talent, looks, teeth. He’s got nothing but a trailer and a job painting cars back home. But he shows up with a dumb grin, mumbles through a song, and takes his beating from the judges. I think we can all relate to that on some level, perhaps even as a metaphor for our own lives. I showed up to work today, pretended to listen to my boss, mumbled something under my breath with a smile on my face, did a half-ass job on a project, and now I’m killing time writing about a TV show instead of doing my mundane job. I continue to despise Paris Bennett. Eliott Yamin. What a freaking mess, Elliot. The get-up was right out of Abercrombie and Vagrant, the white-guy-from-the-hood dance was laughable, he forgot the words to the song in one spot and got the lyric spacing wrong in another. I just don’t get why this guy is considered a favorite. I figured he'd get sacked a few weeks ago, but once again I’ve completely underestimated the segment of America that votes in this thing. What’s the draw with this guy? And why are the judges washing his balls every week? Bottom three: Lisa, Bucky, and Me. This was a terrible review of one of the worst hours of TV I’ve ever had to sit through. Shame on you for re-living it with me. Anyway, I still think Lisa goes, but I wouldn’t be shocked to see Bucky get booted or me get fired for slacking at my job.

The White House chefs are bailing out on this ship as well..... If you can't stand the heat (ie Laura Bush).....

Whose whining? I'm making popcorn. Andy Card resigning is like getting a bandaid for a gaping chest wound. Now we have the juicy revelation that Rove is actually helping out Fitzgerald in the Plame investigation of Libby. You give that many crooks that kind of power, put them all in the same room, and you're bound to implode at some point. It's a testimony (did he just say "testimony"?) to Dubya's business education and accumen that it didn't happen sooner.