X. Benedict

Lou Rawls could kick Lee Atwater's ass.

Funny, but I am yet to meet a College Republican that is against college welfare. Pell Grants, Stafford loans, or the most commie of all, the Federal Work Study Program where the Federal government pays for 75% of the time spent turning on automatic sprinklers and other demanding jobs. It's time for them to crack the real issues and sign the pledge to reject these welfare programs.

I think if you are going to look at the antecedents of progressivism, it is probably best to start with Robert Lafollette rather than FDR and social programs.

Any idea what the casualty rate was for French Algeria?

At least someone is keeping standards high around here.

almost sorta, kinda explains it best.

I am not sure exactly what you are looking for but, here goes: Progressivism as I understand it, favors a decentralized approach to problem solving, which primarily empowers civic and most often private associations. Most progressives are more concerned with the overreach of federal power rather than the lack of it and take a posture that government needs constant reform and supervision (because power corrupts). Progressives tend to be more concerned about zoning and the quality of communities and schools rather than broad entitlement programs. Public space is generally a priority. So, maybe the answer you are looking for is I'm happy we have a wheelchair ramp and some crossing guards.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/tribes.htm The Baathists, at least rhetorically speaking, were against the tribal systems. Although ruthless, they were a secular and centralizing force (even if they exploited and advantaged some tribes at the same time). But for all the Baathist pan-arab rhetoric they could never really get around the fact that power remained structured among families in the Arab world. (The Assads in Syria, the Sauds, or even the the families of Tikrit). The Baathist gave women the vote and also nurtured a secular professional class of doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers and bankers, (and bartenders!) The idea was to decapitate this power structure and leave the functioning part of civil society, but the DeBaathification and the disinigration of the army has pushed power to the conservative/tribal/theocratic elements of society. We wanted something more akin to a guardian coup - but now we got Imams, jihadis, and sectarian schisms.

That's an excellent point. Maybe a Venn diagram.....

Because in the absence of a functioning government (or fear of it) the tribe is a more cohesive institution than civil laws or public institutions. The state may fail but your tribe is likely to survive any borders on a map or nation state, just as it always has.

Does anyone have a decent table of people killed in terrorist attacks vs. recreational boating accidents?

Oh she's a hottie! I saw her on Smoking Gun.

The results of the ISG was sourced by the media, but the use of it was not that surprising. The stuff that was found just didn't measure up to the pre-war rhetoric of a guy like Cheney claiming that we know Saddam has stockpiles and we know where they are. The same medium they used to get that message out in the run up failed to give a nuanced portrait of the findings because the expectations were not that nuanced to begin with. When Powell told the plenary session at the UN that "there can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more." The bar was set pretty high, so rather than taking the ISG on its own merits - the standard was really the pre-war hype. Anyone who is interested this is the Brookings Institute Iraq Index report. Pretty centrist in my opinion, but certainly quite left of the Heritage Foundation. http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index.pdf

I am not going to defend the mass media by saying they are really good at what they do, but I not wishing that they be a more efficient medium of propaganda either. Number #8 I find quite interesting. If they missed that, they really dropped the ball.

No condom? I thought Quantas was the airline that put safety first.

No disagreement from me. The mainstream media is conventional in the sense that it is a slave to to the buzz of the news cycle, and if anything, indifferent to long military planning and objectives. As far as how the media can affect the political capital necessary to prosecute a war is perhaps a different matter. Generally, I agree. (I also think Clinton's plan is designed for failure, but it sure does give good political cover). Congress in a way has already given its recommendations through the Iraq Study Group. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon the president to articulate his program. Of course the President has not taken the recommendations of the study group - but in terms of appropriations the Congress cutting anything is not without political risk. I just find it a bit comical that blaming the MSM and nascent (and most likely abortive) political plans can be blamed for the President failing in articulating and prosecuting his war plan with the formulation "we can't kill the enemy because of the liberals."

What has the mainstream media been doing to stop our troops from killing the enemy? Are they diving in front of bullets? What aren't they reporting here? And how has any liberal political leader foiled any military plan up to now? You work in the Pentagon, so please let us know. I am not saying that I agree with Clinton, but I am interested to know why you think capping or reducing troop levels is a bad idea. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/...69481&&

Did you read what she is proposing? Capping the troop numbers in Iraq is the reduction part, and the protection part is about making sure everyone in the theater has body armor. Which one are you against? Oh right, Liberals.

In some respects I think this is true. The invasion unstratified Iraqi civil society. The Kurds were the least affected by this because they already had a great deal of autonomy prior to the invasion. Eventually it will re-stratify, but that could take years. The British in colonial occupations usually just picked a minority to help them rule and dispensed with much of the settling process. There is something to be said for it. This however, seems so at odds with American ideals that we prefer not to choose.

That's fingernail. And if you had bothered to read you would have realized I that the grub comment was agreeing with you. And yes, I do mean that. Your high-pitched wails and screeds have little audience, and any decent point you try to make usually gets lost in your delivery. Though I do think you are intelligent - it is not really not a mark of intelligence to continually write past the people you are trying to make a point to. Usually that happens on the right, but you really have no equal here. Congratulations. You've made it. Too bad it is all so darned uninteresting. I didn't think it could be done, but I think you are the first person here that has actually pushed a lib like me to the right.

Fork meet frying pan.

I still need to do 6, 18, and 23.

Yes. So?

Not much. Terrorism is a tactic - not a strategy, and it is used for discrete goals. Even if you are part of a global network, terrorism is of limited utility for any organization and is always a weapon of weakness. Tactically - if you use terrorism, by definition you have a weak hand. Even if an organization is globally networked, it makes little difference, if it needs to use terrorism its global ambitions or its ideology are really of little concern beyond the discrete events of terror.

Neither do barns, but if you follow the stink.....