finknottle

And yet... put yourself in Obama's shoes. Can he risk being seen as doing nothing? What if they launch it and it does hit or comes close (whether NK's intention or not). How would that play out politically?

I'm Hungarian. I want apologies and reparations from you for the period 1333-1386 when Poland grabbed Hungarian lands.

I agree with everything except (4). The debate on global warming is over. It is the debate on viable responses and their implications that is being circumvented.

Nothing that hasn't been said here a million times already. NK is the walking example of what WMD really means. Knocking down the idea that they will attack is a strawman of the left - they won't (probably) because they will lose. But the real issue with WMD is defensive. NK's existing (non-nuclear) capacity for destruction means it is impossible to move against them, whatever the provocation. That reality kept the Clinton administration from considering a military strike against their facilities. So - NK can do pretty much what it wants, short of full war, and there is nothing we can do without the devestation to the world economy that a NK artillary attack on Seoul and the SK industrial region would bring. Missile technology, counterfeiting, insurance fraud (see today's Washington Post), drug trafficing, kidnapping - we hand over 'aid' and all is forgiven, over and over again. As for China and Russia: Russia maybe, China no. Obstensively, China doesn't want the refugees (though it could seal the border in a pinch). It's real objection is that it fears regime change on the Korean peninsula. It likes having a backward repressive regime in the north. The last thing it wants is a unified Korea, a large democratic economic powerhouse, on its border as an example to the Chinese people.

It is a toast-masters club. There is no actual debating.

Have you described VABills as your spiritual mentor? And did you chose him to be the godfather to your children? I must have missed that post...

Michigan will be up for grabs in 2012, and blame Obama if they lose their jobs. California is safely democratic in the national elections no matter what happens.

Gee, it's a good thing people never actually game the system in practice.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31373407/ The Obama administration is continuing the appeal of the Bush Administration's policy of blocking the release of the names of those who visit the White House for policy consultations. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

I for one am pleased to see Obamania sweeping the globe. Like Obama, Ahmadinejad successfully harnessed the demand for change with clever campaign slogans like “Ma mitavanim” (We can!).

The short answer is yes - I think your understanding is correct.

It has happened to me 20 years ago. Why? At the time it was two mid-twenty kids in a bad-ass mustang crossing the border at a main entry in the morning and returning late at night through a different middle-of-nowhere entry within the Montreal-NYC drug corridor. Pure profiling. And a reasonable one at that. Was I pissed? Nope. In hindsight I was happy to see that somebody is awake and thinking in the border protection business. All those years being waved through at the Falls led me to expect otherwise. Probably cause and domestic law is useless for border control. Consider the situation when we were young. They would ask our citizenship, and if it was the US they would wave us through - no passport or proof of ID neccessary. If probable cause were the threshold for further investigation, then there would be no lawfull means of challanging anybody's claim of US citizenship.

It has nothing to do with the Patriot Act, or Bush, or Cheney. Indeed, search without cause has always been the governments perogative at a port of entry (ie border crossings, the international terminals of airports, etc). It is in fact the international norm. The only issues are how often it occurs, and what is the method of determining how often and who to search (probable cause? profiling? random?), which varies from country to country.

Yes. but in defense of the disparity at the outset: a good editor will try to anticipate what story will better capture the publics interest and allocate resources accordingly.

Rather than blaming Bush and Rush for incitement, shouldn't we be pointing the finger at Ron Paul and friends?

Can somebody explain to me exactly what the terms are in the deal? It seems to me that the Obama Administration wanted to give Chrysler to the UAW, screw the owners and bondholders. That is too brazen, so they needed somebody like Fiat as a smokescreen. As best as I can tell, the UAW gets 55%, the USG 8%, Fiat 20%, and 17% to the existing owners/debtors. As far as I can tell Fiat does not have to pay a penny for their share, nor invest any of their own money, nor commit to anything at all - and the USG will sink in a fresh $6 billion dollar capitalization 'loan.' So what exactly does Fiat have to do in exchange for this free government cheese? Are they truely just a stand-in so that the UAW can get their payback while the media misdirects our attention and runs "Fiat acquires Chrysler?" Am I missing something in the agreement?

Increase in public debt is the right way to look at it because of spending gimmicks (which, btw, also reveals that the budget was not balanced by the end of the Clinton administration, though it came closer than at any other time.). Here are the annotated increases in public debt: 1997 $189 billion 1998 $113 billion 1999 $130 billion 2000 $18 billion 2001 $133 billion <- Dot-Com burst and potential recession 2002 $421 billion <vvv- Spending on homeland/GWOT/Afghanistan and to shore up markets post-9/11 2003 $555 billion <vvv- Bush Tax Cuts 2004 $596 billion <vvv- Iraq spending 2005 $553 billion 2006 $574 billion 2007 $501 billion 2008 $1,017 billion <--- includes one-time creation of $700 billion TARP fund 2009 $1,358 billion <--- as of June 2. Note: total Iraq spending is about $600 billion.

Just curious - about how many days a year would you need that much room? For me its about two that my car is packed (if that). Seems pretty inefficient to gas around in a larger car 365 days if you only use the space 10 days or less. Like choosing a pickup truck because of that (for most of us) one day a year when you need to move furniture.

If the Weekly Standard has it right, there has been a policy change to extend Miranda rights to High Value detainee's in Afghanistan: http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/A...16/605iidws.asp In defense, it is probably to ensure that if we intend to detain them we do it only with evidence and proceedure that will stand up in civil court... But granting Miranda rights to High Value detainees appears at odds with statements in a March interview (0:42s): http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=358253&widget=1

And that is precisely the point - they need an effective rate of about 15% (that's just my guestimate) to compete with that of the European countries, which are probably about 10%. So - you have a choice. Keep the current high rates and the current exemptions, or make it an above-board 15%. Nobody is surprised that they would have a heart attack at 27% with no exemptions, because everybody knows that the effective rate is lower than that. Without that effective rate, the companies will not be able to compete.

This is exciting stuff!

Perhaps because at 27% it would still be higher than the rates in most European countries, not even counting their extensive exemptions, incentives, and loopholes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe

Being 'in power' in Lebanon is very different than in other countries - it's a balkanized country. Frankly, I'm not sure Hezbvollah wanted to win. It brings too many responsibilities. Under the status quo, they have complete autonomy and their own army in southern Lebanon - an army which is much more powerfull than the national army. Foreign aid is distributed by the national government. Were Hezbollah to take control nationally, that aid would dry up, Lebanon might become economically isolated, and the party would be unable to deliver on social services. I think they like things just as they are.

Being shocked is a luxury we can afford when we are unthreatened and our wars are more like weekend outings. I don't think it would have made a bit of difference in a real war when your nation is at stake. Do you really think the British public would have cared one bit when their backs were against the wall in 1941 if they had heard about some of the more unsavory things their government was doing? Or the Russians in 1942? Or the Germans in 1943? Or the Japanese in 1944?

How is Sandra Bernhard doing? Didn't she promise that Palin would be gang raped if she came to Manhattan?