FYI, I used my Virgin Mary tie tack today.

http://www.holoviak.com/acatalog/C-54LGP.jpg

People versus property
 

Lest we forget, the United States only came into existance via the deliberate punting in the Constitution of the slavery issue for 20 years (and then some).

People versus property
 

Per the WSJ today, both of these are inaccurate.

1) it refers to sharia as "a" legal source, not "the"

2) it also contains equal protection issues. That being said, the true concern should not be the language but the implementation. Even Iran has guarantees of liberty - its the enforcement of those rights that is being questioned (i.g., who appoints the courts).

People versus property
 

1) Good. That is a significant difference, and one which seems to have been the subject of much debate. I assume that the VoA columnist and the Iraqi Minister of Women quoted in the column were looking at an earlier draft.

2) Also good, and I agree with you that enforcement is the key.

On to your mention of the US Constitution -- I don't think that using our struggles is a particularly apt comparison here. If it was the French army who had been the exclusive military force defeating the British during the Revolution, and it was still patrolling the streets of Philadelphia during the debates while Tories were blowing them up every so often, and the proposed draft that Madison et al cobbled together rejected some basic principles important to the French, then it might be a decent analogy.

People versus property
 

Perhaps. I just think it's odd that the current discussion on the Iraqi constitution seems to willfully ignore the "civil rights" issues that were swept aside during the founding of our own republic.

People versus property
 

That was a long time ago, and I don't think that people actually lost rights that they had before the Constitution was ratified.

First Amendment
 

WTF?

If they're running it, sure. But not if the majority (the Shi'ites) rules.

Ergo the federalism issue and the need for the national administration of the oil trust.

No-Responsibility Zone
 

Please explain to me how Gorelick's wall has anything to do with Able Danger. Quote from the wall, please.

penske's credibility, I'll match his and raise you Ty's
 

I don't need my view of the world reduced to something that could be explained by a six-year-old, but if it works for you, stick with it.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." ~ H.L. Mencken

I thought spanky said there would be free markets. If their major (by far) industry is nationalized, how will Iraqis ever be free?

“There are two kinds of people; human beings and women. When women start acting like human beings they are accused of trying to be men.” -- Simone De Beauvoir

And yet the insurgents don't seem to be buying it.

100 bombs went off in Bengladesh today. Doesn't Rumsfeld have an exit plan there?

No-Responsibility Zone
 

I believe it prevented the intelligence agencies from sharing information on Atta, i.e. Atta was on the CIAs list of possible terrorists but because of the Gorelick wall they could not share the info with the FBI. Apparently also, Atta was in Prague meeting with the Iraqis in 2001.

No-Responsibility Zone
 

So you think the reason they put the wall in place was that someone at CIA had info on the Vince Foster thing and Hillary needed to freeze it?

No-Responsibility Zone
 

I asked for a cite because a blog I read, quoting from the New York Times, notes that the explanation given by official sources has evolved from suggested there was some legal basis to more of a PR concern about, e.g., what happened in Waco. I know the Waco angle will be a pet favorite of yours, so perhaps you should be blaming 9/11 on Janet Reno instead of Jamie Gorelick.

No-Responsibility Zone
 

I invented that

Again: the ignorant attack the free market
 

The Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They have socialist parties but they do not promote socialism. These are welfare states. There is a huge difference. Following WWII they had some of the freest markets in Europe. In the seventies they started instituting the welfare state but they still left enterprise free. That is why Sweden sports a few billionaires and Nokia exists in Finland. However, they have had to reduce their welfare states because of the cost but the economies are still some of the freest in Europe.

The four largest growth rates in recent history occurred in Nazi Germany under Hitler, Communist Russia under Stalin, Hong Kong under the British and Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew. Nazi Germany used massive deficit spending to spring their economy to life and they paid back their massive debts with war looting profits (including confiscating all Jewish property) and then slave labor. Lenin drove the economy into the ground but then started the NEP, letting the Kulaks exercise free enterprise, and the Soviet Economy somewhat bounced back. Then Stalin came in and liquidated the Kulaks. He ended any free enterprise. He then set production quotas, and if these quotas were not met you were shot as a traitor. Not surprisingly the economy grew rapidly. It is also estimated that as much as one fifth of the population was in slave labor camps and this slave labor helped with growth. Once the terror stopped the economy stopped growing.

Hong Kong and Singapore simply had some of the freest markets in history.

So unless you want to use slave labor, threaten the lives of your managers, and confiscate property from your citizens it seems that the free market is the way to go.

For the Record
 

Putting the Iraq war in perspective.

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq during the month of January..... In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war torn country of Iraq.

FDR led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us: Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.

Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost, an average of 18,334 per year.

John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.

Clinton started a war with Serbia without UN or French consent. Serbia never attacked us. That was seven years ago and we still have occupation forces in Serbia.

In the three years since terrorists attacked us President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran and North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. In addition, there has not been one casualty caused by a terrorist attack in the United States since 9-11.

It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.

We've been looking for evidence of chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton to find the Rose Law Firm billing records.

It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquiddick killing a woman.

For the Record
 

This may get you to the Penske #1 position.

For the Record
 

So how many combat-related killings were there in Detroit that month? Not so many, I'm thinking. And does anyone have any idea how many murders there were in Iraq that month? I think the police have their hands full with other problems.

For the Record
 

I can't believe you went there. More Americans were killed that month in Detroit than in all of Iraq where this terrible insurgency that is completely out of hand is supposed to exist. And that is just one city of 2 million - not even the size of baghdad - compared to the entire nation of Iraq.

Are gang related killings considered combat? If that is the case I am sure there are more combat killings in the United States everyday than there are in Iraq.

In the first four hours of D-Day there were three thousand deaths.

In the 1980s New York city averaged three deaths a day. I am sure there were more killings every day in the United States in the 1980s than there are in Iraq everyday now.

Iraq has twenty five million people. I don't think that even one percent of the population has died in this war. And yet everyone makes it sound like it is a complete blood bath.

Of course every death is a tragedy. But if everyone that was murdered every day in the United States pictures was put on the news this country would seem like it was totally out of hand and a blood bath. Can you imagine what it would be like if every night on the news if every victim of a violent crime's picture was put on the news? The news would not be long enough.

I think there around ten thousand highway deaths every year the United States. Can you imagine every picture being put on the news.

If you put the numbers in perspective you realize that Iraq is far from being an out of control or being a quagmire.

More Perspective
 

There were 39 murders in Detroit in January. Detroits population is 951,279. So if you lived in Detroit in January there was a .004 percent chance you would die.

There were 35 combat deaths in Iraq in January and there are 1.4 million active and reserve personell in the US military.
If you were in the military there was a .0025 percent chance you would be killed in Iraq.

So in January it was almost twice as safe to be in the military during the "quagmire" in Iraq than it was to be a resident of Detroit.

More Perspective
 

that was right after I turned nice here- steam had to go somewhere.

For the Record
 

Oh, and don't forget heart disease, cancer and old age. When you compare Iraq to those, its nothing. A blip. Not even an event worth noting.

For the Record
 

One of my partners (math geek) proved that getting on an airplane the morning of 9/11/01 was still safer % than our drives into work that morning.

For the Record
 

Murders have been reclassified under the interim Iraqi constitution as “natural causes.” As an anonymous administration aide noted, “In war, murder is a natural cause. Its only right that we properly define during this transition phase. Once we have stability, it will of course be reclassified as ‘non-natural.’ Or is that ‘unnatural?’ You know what I mean, right?”

For the Record
 

The Freakonomics author (presumably a math geek as well) points out that when you factor in "hours spent in [method of transportation,]" flying is no safer than driving.

I KNEW it!

For the Record
 

Ah, but check out the jump in your relative risk of dying in a fiery explosion the minute you step on the plane. Stats are so misused. I read some shit this morning where some asshole stated that children who eat french fries between ages 3 and 5 have a 27% greater risk of developing breast cancer as an adult. Of course, no specifics regarding the study (controls, number of people examined, other potential carcinogens the study subjects ate) were described. The jackass on NPR just spit out the blood curdling warning cry - “French Fries = Cancer Risk!” I want to do s study to determine whether the internet has made people more stupid than they were before. There’s an obvious inverse relationship between the quality and quantity of knowledge the Average American has in his head. Pack of fucking water cooler dilletantes.

For the Record
 

I think i posted this before but anyways.....

Scary plane story

I'm sitting back about row 20 and with the 2 inside seats open. Right before the doors close a blind couple come on the plane and are in the seats next to me. But they don't just sit down, they have this whole routine. the guy has to count rows to the exit row and he's moving around doing other crap to get ready.

And i was impressed by how focused he was getting ready to be a blind guy in flight. We talked a little as we taxied. Then scary moment- as we sped up to take off he sez:

What's that sound? that's not right. Something isn't right!

He turns to me

Hit the Stewardess call button we have to stop the take off

Now I know that when you lose a sense your others increase to compensate. So I figure there's a really good chance he's right and that something is really fucked up.

And I thought of hitting the button but then i realized that they'd ignore it until we got up so if he was right we were dead anyway.

I turned to him

Don't worry that sound is normal for this model plane

That was back when they still served hot breakfast and we had home fries, probably while we passed over Philly going into National.

For the Record
 

I just finished Chuck Klosterman’s “Killing Yourself to Live.” Chuck explains perfectly why the argument that driving is more dangerous than flying is so hollow. In a car crash, you usually have maybe a moment of sheer horror before the lights go out. Its sudden and you’re dead. In a plane crash, you have anywhere from 30 seconds to several minutes of sheer horror, and when a plane crashes, you’re about 5000X more likely to die than you are in the average car accident. Chuck Klosterman is no scientist, and his book is not much more than a rambling pot-soaked lark. But he explains perfectly why, when I hear people use that “your car is much more dangerous than a plane” bit, I want to scatter their teeth about the room. Its like when people say “Possession is 9/10 of the law.” No, no its not. Not at all. What you’re really saying is “whoever is holding the item has an advantage because the person seeking to get it must use a lengthy legal process to take it away from the possessor.” But the question of who rightly possesses the thing by law has nothing at all to do with possession.*
*Unless you’re debating adverse possession, in which case, get a fucking life.

For the Record
 

A friend and I were at a bar after a final in our last year of law school, and a guy we worked with who was just finishing his first year sat down. My friend was talking about how he was buying this house and 1L goes, "are you getting a fee simple?"

He actually believed all that shit meant something. When was the last sale of a proerty that would revert "when the big oak tree falls?"

how can that crap still be on the bar exam and preventing people from being lawyers?

For the Record
 

Thats why there are so many douchebags fumbling around in this profession. There’s a whole slew of imbeciles who view law as some sort of intellectual game. They’re the idiots who spend 8 million hours researching non-issues and cause you to get those calls from clients screaming about bills. Ever try to explain to an irate client why a guy only two years behind you took a half a fucking day to prep for a motion to compel discovery responses? I called the guy who did it and said “Dude, you can’t whack up the bill that nakedly. You gotta hide that shit. Move it around. Break it down.” The dude told me it was legitimate time. Idiot lost the motion anyway. Thats how you wind up with 65% realization from a client.

For the Record
 

That was one of the parts of the book that peeved me. I don't see how that measurement in particularly relevant to a decision making process.

I need to get to Point B from Point A, and with the relative dangers of the different methods of transport between the two. I'm not trying to figure out whether its safer to kill 3 hours in a plane or a car.

For the Record
 

That would be nice if it were true, but that's not what your numbers said. You compared "combat-related" deaths in that month to murders in Detroit.

You can be sure that no one in Iraq is in a position to try to count gang-related killings, so it's a pretty moot point. The police there are too busy not being killed.

For that matter, I have a hard time believing that anyone is getting an accurate count of the insurgent death toll.

Look, if that's the context you want to put this in, we can all agree that the fighting in Iraq is less bloody than any major war the U.S. has been involved in. Our tactics, our armor, and our field medicine are all vastly improved.

Well, you're playing games with the numbers for the reasons I've said above. But the key thing is, the numbers are not the reason the situation is so fucked up. There's an active and effective insurgency that we can't put down. (And it can't beat us in military terms.) The insurgents have been very effective at preventing life from getting back to normal. Journalists cannot travel freely, electricity is limited, etc. This impairs the legitimacy and presence of the Iraqi government.

For the Record
 

Why would you compare the hours traveled instead of the distance traveled? The speed of flight is one of its advantages.

eta: stp/balt

For the Record
 

I don't remember, but it made sense when I read it.

For the Record
 

What you consider safer and which you choose isn't the point. He's merely stating that empirically, the data shows that flying isn't safer than driving. I don't think Leavitt was addressing the issue of how statistics impact people's decisions in the book.