Betting on assassinations and terror attacks

Scrat
I did not need anyones opinion to judge it the invention of a sick mind. I thought it was insane the moment I read about it.

This idea was, to say the least, a public relations nightmare for DOD. Having Poindexter involved made it even worse.
But I've taken enough econ and poli-sci courses to realize that the idea wasn't really 100% wacky.
Cost/benefit; risk/reward...it's a complex series of topics. I would bet (heh,heh) that there will be some op-ed pieces in the papers by Sunday that will be better able to explore this than I am capable of doing.

Scrat, I don't think we have participated on very many threads. We probably could find a lot to disagree about but (1) hang in there, dude and (2) congratulations on hitting 1000 posts (not that verbosity is a virtue) . -rjb-

Even the radio jocks on the sportstalk station here in H-Town--not exactly known for their raging liberalism--were hooting at this.

"What jackass thought THIS up?" "That's got to be a joke; are you sure that's not 'The Onion' ?"

Now, Scrattie: if an enterprising governmental official/bookie in London, or Istanbul, or the international affairs division of the Palestinian ruling authority set up a department to take odds on Dubya's assassination ,or the next hijacking, or which American landmark would most likely explode next, do you think you might be the teensiest bit bothered about that?

You are probably right, John.

But even you will acknowledge that calling a thing "not 100% wacky" is not a ringing endorsement.

And in a democracy such as we enjoy, there will always be people who will rationalize this kind of lunacy -- especially if they are in the habit of rationalizing the kind of lunacy we've seen coming from this group.

They "got too imaginative."

Demented chickenhawks are running amok in the Pentagon, pulling the strings of an illegitimate puppet squatting in the people's White House.

Tartarin wrote:
Merit for whom?

Scrat: Merit as an idea.

One of the striking things about this administration is how good ol' boys can marry think-tankers, and this is another glaring occasion in which the progeny are deformed. It has to be better than a smart idea, Scrat. It has to be constitutional and above-board. That's the kind of merit I'm talking about. It has to be better than a Hollywood scenario, straight out of fantasy land. The previous president with all the Hollywood friends seemed able to tell reality from fantasy! Bush and Co., with no Hollywood friends I can think of, are nonetheless bewitched by Wonderful Scenarios, from capitalistic democracy saving a tribal landscape by wreaking war upon it, to that aircraft carrier landing. Scrat, you may or may not be one of them, but many Americans sure seem to have trouble telling the difference, too. I'd put Poindexter and Wolfowitz and that crazy, foxy Rummy in that group.

realjohnboy - Thanks for "getting" where I'm coming from, and for the kind words. I don't need to agree with someone to count him or her as a friend.

Well, if "constitutional and above-board" is how you define merit, then I can't fathom why you find this idea lacking. The idea was being discussed openly and early enough that the program never got off the ground--seems very "above board" to me, and as to the Constitutionality of the idea I'd love to have you explain for me how it is not Constitutional.

Thanks in advance for your courteous reply.

On the other hand, I'd like to see your understanding of this, scrat. You said you understood this.

My son-in-law, the money maven (the Morgan Stanley whizz) said the general opinion of this on the street was disbelief, that it exhibited such a lack of understanding of how the market works - but then, as was said, these were the same people who predicted all that wonder recovery in three months in Iraq.

By the way, scrat, I really like that Heinlein quote. I'm kind of surprised at your choice of it, however. It applies so aptly to what we did in Iraq, and to so much this shrubbery has done to the American people without ever considering them. The price we are paying for having an unwanted (check all the early polls on this) tax cut boggles the mind. A 2-point drop in consumer confidence (issued by the Conference Board today), a deficit growing too big to even consider, a joblessness rate that is beginning to scare a lot of people, an economy that is stagnant (to put the best face on it), bills for the cost of the war that Wolfowitz says they will submit, but which certainly haven't shown up yet............ Did you really choose that quote deliberately?

mj - Glad you like the quote, but you seem to infer a different meaning than I. Perhaps that's the strength of the statement; applies at once both to my discomfort at having my earnings confiscated and used to do things I would not have done, and to yours, despite yours being based on a very different list. I see our national defense as an appropriate, Constitutional use of my tax dollars, but see no Constitutional justification for federal welfare programs. You (I suspect) probably think the feds should be "helping" people with your tax dollars and probably don't think that being in Iraq is in our national defense interests. I hadn't really considered it before now, but the quote is beautiful in its non-partisan voice. (Thanks for pointing this out.)

As to my understanding of this terror market idea, I've outlined it more than once above, and hope I can ask you to just read what I've already written, since I'm increasingly disinterested in whipping this dead horse. My viewpoint on this was and is clearly in the minority. I'm fine with that.

Scrat, as you say, the idea does have merit. It's useful in determining the intelligence of those who hear about it and decide whether it's good policy.

Like a Rorschach test...

I can always count on you for personal attacks when others are being civil.

Who's being civil? Scrat - you do more attacking than most people, which you try to hide in obfuscation, and then look around and say "who, me?"

As for the Heinlein quote - your understanding of this clearly indicates your thinking - as I recall, you think he's he's one of the greatest thinkers of the time.

This dead horse, incidentally, is not quite dead. Pointdexter, who apparently thinks he still swings weight - is not happy.

D'art - a Rorschach test - that's good. Poor old Wolfowitz couldn't decide on which interpretation, but he guessed the right one. Here's an interesting take on it from the Bergen Record (NJ).

http://www.northjersey.com/page.php?qstr=eXJpcnk3ZjczN2Y3dnFlZUVFeXkyOSZmZ2JlbDdmN3ZxZWVFRXl5NjQwODM3MSZ5cmlyeTdmNzE3Zjd2cWVlRUV5eTI=

Scrat, are you being serious? That doesn't look like a personal attack to me... D'art raises a really good point (one I fumbled!). I might have used the phrase "moral fiber" rather than "intelligence," but that's because I'm goggled-eyed 24/7 at the prevailing im- and amorality of this administration and how it finds resonance among many Americans.

mj - I was being civil, and was responding to you. Dart decided this was a good time to insult my intelligence. You may agree with him, but that does not make it any less an insult.

And this new mantra of "you've been nasty before so you can't complain" could be used by every person here (or most, at least) so why not just stop all the pettyness and discuss the topics. If you can't see that I was being civil with you above, then you don't want to see it. And if you can see it, then how about just replying in kind and leaving the personal stuff out of it. I'm not here to discuss you or to discuss me. I'm here to discuss issues, ideas, etc.. Can we please, for the love of GOD, just do that?

As to Heinlein, I have never mentioned him before in any discussion. I suspect you are confusing me with someone else.

Scrat has no rebuttal to the daily tidal wave of horseshit flowing from this administration so he responds to every single post that dissents from his 'facts' with an ad hominem or an accusation of an ad hominem.

That is, when he fails to effectively digress the thread.

It's time to scroll again.

PD - You are so full of it. ANYONE can scroll up in this discussion and read what has been written there. I discuss the topic. I expressed my opinion civilly and acknowledged the viewpoints of others, only bristling when insulted for my stated opinion.

Unlike you, I will spare everyone my opinion of you. As I've stated ad nauseum, I don't care to discuss people here. You feel free to keep doing so though. Maybe a few of the other children around here will find you amusing, but I assure you I will not notice.

Neener neener neener! I hope, PDiddie, you feel embarrassed and abashed!! Indeed I hope you take the time to go back and REREAD EVERYTHING SCRAT HAS POSTED so's you can sleep tight tonight, knowing there are intelligent, caring Republicans out there.

Out there somewhere.

Maybe.

There must be.

But then again...

I'm betting there will be an assassination of character in the next post that will terrorize us all! Any takers?

Sorry, Butrflynet, no assassination of character forthcoming from this quarter. However, To Those Who May Be Concerned, if I have to go change into my MODERATOR outfit, there will be general dismay and inconvenience.