finknottle

I don't like any of them. I am socially liberal. But I know a media job when I see it, and David Brooks is not a conservative no matter how many Sundy talk shows he gets invited to.

Can you cite why you describe him as "a very conservative intellectual?" Here is the wiki bio: Yeah, real conservative.

No, not suddenly. As others point out, he is a RINO and generally plays the role of the "token conservative" representing what the left wants to believe is the right.

Then why stop at 2.5? Why not use that bully pulpit to full advantage, and tell us that we'll get 25 million jobs, on top of the 15 million un-exportable green jobs and all the love that is going to be showered on us around the world. Funny that you point out how Bush lost his credibility while recommending the same course for Obama. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt.

Wow - an Obama cheerleader from the NYT is impressed with the team he is building. I'm stunned.

Remind me where those chips are made?

Yeah, I'm gonna drop $25 billion on a CEO who makes good use of his travel time by doing confidential work and making his conference calling from the privacy of Southwest coach.

My reason for asking was not as a veiled criticism of our actions then. Rather, you simply seemed unaware that there is no functioning government in Somalia capable of policing the pirates. A youngster can be excused for assuming otherwise, but people who remember those days generally remember the lawlessness of that failed state if they remember anything at all. It seemed a stretch to accuse the government of complicity when do not even have civil police, let alone a navy.

Leave it all to India - at least they've got the balls to use lethal force.

Where do their governments get the money to pay for it? The health care fairy? They are either taxing companies or they are taxing people. Nothing is free in this world. FYI - Japan offers a government plan, but their system is otherwise fairly similar to that of the US with employer-offered plans. The key difference: if you are a resident of Japam, you are required to be insured. (That was the difference between the Clinton and Obama approach.)

Where are you getting $800 first class tickets? Assuming you want an actual first class cabin - where only other first class passangers can listen in on your business calls, such as on a 747 or bigger - and you want the ticket to be refundable, and you are not getting a last minute super-saver, I think you are looking more at $10,000. I know business class from DC to Europe tends to be about $6,000.

We are rookies, they would clean our clocks. Their (non-gov) hacker groups regularly mix it up with other countries every time there are international tensions. Like gang wars. We don't have anything similar at the grass roots.

A little broadening of the horizons, coutesy of the Indian press: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/11/21/stories...12156791100.htm

During the Somali Civil War, the UN set up UNOSOM to carry out relief missions and broker the cease fire - the US supplied transport. When they couldn't get the job done, the UN passed on Dec 4 1992 an authorization of a US-led military force called UNITAF to support UNOSOM and carry out the security council resolutions. The first troops landed Dec 9. All of the political deliberations took place in the Bush administration, and he committed the 25,000 US troops in the 37,000 strong force. I suspect you are really only looking to trash Clinton, if I recall a similar thread correctly from about a year or two ago. The Clinton admin inherited and ran the operation, the Bush admin negotiated and initiated it.

I would agree with this strategy. The problem is that it requires a significant extended deployment. And once you come upon a speedboat attacking a ship and it breaks off, what do you do? Sink it and kill those on board? I don't think that would be popular with the left. Just out of curiosity, aren't you old enough to remember the Bush/Clinton intervention in Somalia, 1991/2? The situation is not very different. A government only in name, unable to control the warlords, the UN sent a force, and got its ass kicked by thugs with machine guns. But what the heck, this time it will be different.

It would be one thing if there was reason to believe that we could "save our own industries." But unless you are going to carry the big 3 for however long it takes to become profitable, that doesn't happen. Realistically, how long would it take for them get into the black, if all goes well? 3 years minimum? Meanwhile, you have factories and factory workers elsewhere in the US, but owned by foreign companies. Apparently those plants don't count as 'our industries,' so it's ok to put them at an economic disadvantage. This country had the same debate when Reagan let the civilian shipbuilding industry go, and the east coast recovered. But if you are really concerned about having a US-headquartered automobile industry, gather up the money you are willing to spend subsidizing the big 3 and buy their US operations outright. Do the Obama thing where you turn them into a lean, green, productive union machine, and sell it off at a profit. There's no reason to bail out the current investors who made bad choices.

Easier said than done, unless you are in favor of de-regulation. Selling to the government is far more onerous than selling to real customers. There is more paperwork. There may be extra warranty requirements. There may be requirements that the purchase pass through a small business or minority owned business. The manufacturer may have to guarantee and document some percentage of 'made in the USA' or show that it is in compliance with various labor regulations. You may have to go through a long competative bidding process (generating overhead to recoup, multiplied for the risk). The US doesn't purchase like a company, and doesn't pay for things like a company. If it is a service contract, you'll have to designate a contracting officer and periodically jump through hoops. All this extra hassle gets pushed onto the price. And, sadly, rightfully so. If you insist that your new car be delivered on a Tuesday with 2/3 a tank of gas, the mudflats in the trunk, and the sunroof down, all driven by a Latino driver, and you take up 6 months of a salesman's time negotiating it, you can get it. But its gonna cost you more then the guy who simply walks in and buys the same model. If you want to lower the prices, you have to free purchasers from the procurement regulations - let them just go out and buy like any company would.

How many people voted for Kucinich? I'd bet that a good measure would be half his support.

But in a (civil) hostage situation, the police are explicitely empowered to act as they think best. I believe that limits their liability. If somebody dies but the police acted within their operating parameters, its unfortunate but that's all. It's less clear cut what happens here. Suppose an Iranian naval vessel came upon a just seized US ship and immediately attacked, killing everybody on board and sinking the ship. They can say that they were operating within Iranian operational proceedures for pirates, but I'm pretty sure there would be some kind of wrongfull death claims for every life lost and a claim for the ship.

They were fools to get rid of Jaguar.

I would argue that we can go after the pirates, but I would never suggest that it is because we have some mystical right to enforce our laws beyond our borders. Indeed, I don't think we have legal standing at all! And that's my basis for ridiculing the strawman courses of actions the left might take, for they are the ones who would extend US legal protections beyond our borders. And when I say that IMO we should go after the pirates, it is because I think we can, the world would be generally supportive, and there is no foreign policy downside. It has nothing to do with fantasies about the universality of the law.

Btw, you would be surprised how many of the 'southern scum' are northern transplants fleeing the failed economic policies of the rustbelt. They know that there will never be an economic future in the states that are burdened by high taxes and high entitlements.

The workers there have not chosen to unionize. Perhaps they felt that that would ultimately help secure their jobs by keeping their companies more competative than, say, GM and Ford. They made the rigjht call. Let's punish them!

What liability does the country assume for any deaths or damages that are incurred in seizing seized vessels? And for the purposes of pre-emptive action, how do you determine what is a pirate vessel?

Your suggestions are already in place. The problem is that once a ship is seized, it is too late for us to help - what if they start killing hostages? It becomes your basic ransom situation, money for the ship and we'll kill people if there is a rescue attempt, which is why almost none of the ships have ever been rescued by force. The problem is how to prevent attacks, short of escorting the vessels. It's really no different than the terrorism problem. What action can you take when you have identified a pirate ship, but one that is not currently attacking another ship? There are a lot more of them than there are naval vessels. As for your comments on the Somali government, I disagree. There is no control, either by the official government (embattled, and about to lose power again) or the Islamists (who may be benefiting by the proceeds occasionally, but do not control it). Remember, piracy is the Somali equivalent of an unlicensed cab - get a dozen frioends with guns and a speedboat and go fishing for a cargo vessel.