ARod's future

"BadgerBC" <neilrichardson3819.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1184514267.002737.189220@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 15, 6:11 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>
>
>> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it
>> would
>> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.
>
> You really are a blithering idiot, aren't you? We're still digging up
> anti-personnel mines all along the Iron Triangle 54 years after the
> Korean War. I'd personally evacuated a nine year old Korean boy back
> in 1977 who'd stepped on one near Sungwon. Generals James
> Hollingsworth, Hank "Gunfighter" Emerson, Douglas Kinnard, and David
> Palmer (and the list goes on and on) who had fought in three wars
> (WWII, Korea and Vietnam) currently head an overwhelming number of
> flag officers who have begged the United States government to sign the
> Ottawa Protocol banning landmines.
>
> Since you probably know less about military matters than you do about
> economics, let me explain why this is an idiotic proposal of
> unparalleled magnitude. First, the ones who'd get maimed or worse
> killed are mostly women and children. Do you have any frigging idea
> how many mines would be needed to cover the border? There are
> estimated *2million* mines along the DMZ that stretches out 155miles.
> Even if you don't strive for the same level of saturation, do you have
> any clue the quantity that would be required to effectively cover
> 1900miles?
>
> As for properly marking them and keeping a master list, guess what?
> The Army studies have concluded that *more* American casualties in
> Korea were caused by US *defensive minefields* than enemy mines.
> Finally, if you're concerned about al-Qaeda penetrating the US from
> our southern border, just use your brain and think whether it's a good
> idea to make about 5000 tons of military grade explosives available to
> them. An al-Qaeda operative who survived Iraq against US forces (it's
> a rite of passage for the current generation) and underwent rigorous
> training in Pakistan isn't going to have a problem navigating a
> minefield as these people would have the skills to identify and disarm
> them (In fact 90 percent of all component parts of mines used against
> US forces in Vietnam were US-made). And what they could do with
> salvaged explosives would make Main Street USA resemble the Triangle
> of Death.
>

Still another example of why you are one of my favorite posters. Well said.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

BadgerBC wrote:
> On Jul 15, 10:30 am, gclark <gcl....DeleteThis@noneya.net> wrote:
>> BadgerBC wrote:
>>> On Jul 15, 6:11 am, "Fred Burton" <fbur....DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote:
>>>> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it would
>>>> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.
>>> You really are a blithering idiot, aren't you? We're still digging up
>>> anti-personnel mines all along the Iron Triangle 54 years after the
>>> Korean War. I'd personally evacuated a nine year old Korean boy back
>>> in 1977 who'd stepped on one near Sungwon. Generals James
>>> Hollingsworth, Hank "Gunfighter" Emerson, Douglas Kinnard, and David
>>> Palmer (and the list goes on and on) who had fought in three wars
>>> (WWII, Korea and Vietnam) currently head an overwhelming number of
>>> flag officers who have begged the United States government to sign the
>>> Ottawa Protocol banning landmines.
>>> Since you probably know less about military matters than you do about
>>> economics, let me explain why this is an idiotic proposal of
>>> unparalleled magnitude. First, the ones who'd get maimed or worse
>>> killed are mostly women and children. Do you have any frigging idea
>>> how many mines would be needed to cover the border? There are
>>> estimated *2million* mines along the DMZ that stretches out 155miles.
>>> Even if you don't strive for the same level of saturation, do you have
>>> any clue the quantity that would be required to effectively cover
>>> 1900miles?
>>> As for properly marking them and keeping a master list, guess what?
>>> The Army studies have concluded that *more* American casualties in
>>> Korea were caused by US *defensive minefields* than enemy mines.
>>> Finally, if you're concerned about al-Qaeda penetrating the US from
>>> our southern border, just use your brain and think whether it's a good
>>> idea to make about 5000 tons of military grade explosives available to
>>> them. An al-Qaeda operative who survived Iraq against US forces (it's
>>> a rite of passage for the current generation) and underwent rigorous
>>> training in Pakistan isn't going to have a problem navigating a
>>> minefield as these people would have the skills to identify and disarm
>>> them (In fact 90 percent of all component parts of mines used against
>>> US forces in Vietnam were US-made). And what they could do with
>>> salvaged explosives would make Main Street USA resemble the Triangle
>>> of Death.
>> Great post Neil.
>>
>
> Thanks Glen. How have you been?
>

Very well thanks.

Hope all is well with your son. I was having an IM exchange with
my son the other day when they were under a mortar attack. Did not faze
him a bit, can't say the same for me. I'm sure you understand.

--
Glen
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Jul 15, 1:09 pm, McDuck <wallyDELETEMEMcD....RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:38:29 -0700, BadgerBC
>
> <neilrichardson3....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 15, 10:30 am, gclark <gcl....RemoveThis@noneya.net> wrote:
> >> BadgerBC wrote:
> >> Great post Neil.
>
> >Thanks Glen. How have you been?
>
> Agreed. but I have an unrelated question: Have you read "Legacy of
> Ashes" (about the CIA)? I have it on order.

Yes I did. It's a formidably researched work, but there are some
questions about balance. Most of the pre-1970 coverage is just
outstanding IMHO (even better than Loch Johnson's work). However, the
weakness is the coverage of the end of the Cold War. There are better
works on this period by Sir Christopher Andrew and even some former
Operations Directorate officials like Milt Bearden (as far as
microhistory of the SE Division). Even Philip Zelikow and Condi
Rice's book is probably better especially regarding the German
unification. The real problem is that a lot of details on the Agency's
successes from the period after James Angleton lost influence to Ames
and Hansen (The two probably wiped out most of the networks in the SE
Divison) just haven't been declassified yet.

And we have Gordievsky and now General Oleg Kalugin suggesting that
the Agency was quite good during this period (early 1970s to mid
1980s) when there were amazing successes. For example the CIA
sabotaged the Soviet gas pipeline and apparently Adolf Tolkachev's
products were comparable in scope and value to Walker ring's work
(they gave away the Navy's crown jewels to KGB). However, the extent
of the details haven't been made known fully. Of course right after
this unprecedented string of successes against the Soviet Union (other
than Penkovsky period), Hansen and Ames destroyed the SE Division's
entire network as well as MI6 assets like Gordievsky who had a very
close call before exfiltration.

Finally, it's been reported from the Russian side that GHW Bush
informed Gorbachev and Yeltsin about the Kryuchkov-Yanayev-Yazov
ring's coup attempt even though it meant he was giving away sources
and methods on US IC's access to top level Soviet governmental
communications (In Christopher Andrew's view, GHW Bush is among the
three greatest US presidents when it came to handling intelligence
affairs. The other two were George Washington and Ike) Gorbachev was
delusional and ignored it while Yeltsin heeded the warning. With
advanced warning, Yeltsin had coopted the Taman Division leadership
and even some KGB Alpha leaders who basically ended the coup by
refusing to obey the order to crack down on Yeltsin led group who had
the popular support of most Muscovites. That was an intelligence
success unparalleled in terms of value IMHO as it ended the Soviet
Union's existence peacefully (which wasn't something many predicted
then)

In terms of the Agency's analytics history, Weiner is a little weak
IMHO but that might be due to lack of access. Tenet had allowed some
outstanding US diplomatic and intelligence historians unprecedented
access (George Herring, John Lewis Gaddis, Robert Pastor, Ernest May,
and Robert Jervis who is among the most important political scientists
in the last 50 years) back in 1996. However, the declassification
process has crawled to a halt during the first GWB administration and
now they are rolling it back altogether. However, it'll probably take
some time (probably after a Dem White House) before some of that is
released.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Fred Burton" <fburton.DeleteThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
news:f7d6dj$2bog$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>
> "John Doherty" <jdoherty.DeleteThis@nowhere.null.not> wrote in message
> news:f7cegd01su6@news2.newsguy.com...
> > In <I4idnd4kXvFcJQTbnZ2dnUVZ_oa3nZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>, Steve Robbins
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he is
> >>> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
> >>> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no
> >>> understanding of NFL economics.
> >>>
> >>> I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand
> >>> NFL economics (at a layman's level, that is)?
> >>
> >> Ummm....why is that? I follow baseball fairly well (as time
> >> constraints allow). And I am in a NG with you Yahoos (whomever
> >> makes up that group). Because what time I have goes into baseball,
> >> I only follow football casually. So you are saying that my
> >> baseball knowledge is worthless because I don't know in depth
> >> information about football economics? Sounds like a strange leap.
> >
> > There are more things in heaven and earth -- people who follow MLB but
> > not the NFL, people who think Ann Coulter is a lunatic, not a
> > "prominent conservative speaker," people who think that mining the US
> > border with Mexico is probably not a very smart idea, I'm sure the
> > list goes on and on -- than are dreamt of in Fred's philosophy.
> >
> 1. First of all, I don't think that you have to "follow the NFL" to
> understand
> its economic model.
>
> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it
would
> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.

Mining the border would be insane and surely a violation of myriads of laws.
Anyone who advocates it isn't thinking well.
>
> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those people who think
> that SHE
> is the lunatic.

She may not be a lunatic, but she is a very loose cannon.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"gnork" <gnork44.RemoveThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jgqmi.7853$Od7.1063@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Fred Burton" <fburton.RemoveThis@starfire.mv.com> wrote in message
> news:f7d6dj$2bog$1@pyrite.mv.net...
>>

>> 2. Mining the US-Mexico border is "probably not a very smart idea", it
> would
>> be an outstandingly brilliant idea.
>
> Mining the border would be insane and surely a violation of myriads of
> laws.
> Anyone who advocates it isn't thinking well.

Why "surely"? Why "insane"? And what laws? What about the laws that these
INVADERS are breaking? What about the people who are killed EVERY DAY
by these INVADERS? More Americans are being killed EVERY DAY by these
INVADERS than are killing in Iraq, but the Lame-stream media doesn't tell us
that
little tidbit.

So then, what's so "insane" about getting serious about TRULY defending our
borders against these INVADERS?



>>
>> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those people who think
>> that SHE
>> is the lunatic.
>
> She may not be a lunatic, but she is a very loose cannon.
>
>

I'll agree that she's a loose cannon. Then again, she's a writer,
not a member of the RNC.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"gnork" <gnork44.DeleteThis@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:5C6mi.7946$zA4.6191@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "BobK" <BobK.DeleteThis@diespammerdie.net> wrote in message
> news:dg2mi.1$yT1.0@newsfe12.lga...
>> John Doherty wrote:
>> > In <ijgg93tsv032pil51qjtdh21luch1g81f3.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, McDuck wrote:
>> >
>> >> So ARod, though Boras, is testing the waters for a new contract over
>> >> the winter. Why not? He's making a lot, but more is always better.
>> >> <g>
>> >
>> > Just read this evening that he's said he won't negotiate with the
>> > Yankees during the season. Doesn't mean much, but it's news.
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> The Yanks just out out a statement yesterday saying if A-Rod doesn't
>> talk extension now, the Yanks won't be a bidder on his contract next
>> year.
>
> Somebody's playing poker.
>
>
He's a HOF SS. Maybe he wants to go back to that position. That might
eliminate NY.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

Fred Burton venit, vidit, et dixit:
> "Pearly Soames" <mr_soames RemoveThis @charter.net> wrote...
>> Fred Burton wrote:

>>> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those
>>> people who think that SHE is the lunatic.

>> Do you believe that the problems in the Middle East can be
>> solved by converting everyone to Christianity?

> In a theoretical sense, yes. (BTW, I am not a "christian".)

> But in reality, it would never happen.

I agree with the second line, but I suspect I do not agree with
the first (well, not the part about your not being a Christian).
There are plenty of people in the Middle East who follow Islam
but who still find reasons to hate other people who follow the
same religion. Making them all Christian might just change the
reasons for violence from "who was the first caliph" to "should
we include the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed." It's not
as if Christians haven't fought Christians before.

<snip>

> I don't think that it makes anyone a lunatic to think that
> it would "solve" the problem. Rather, what I'd say is that
> anyone who thinks that it's an IMPLEMENTABLE solution, is
> probably a lunatic.

> How this relates to Coulter, I think one has to know whether
> she was serious or not. And whether she believes that the
> idea was implementable or not. And remember, she has said that
> she does like to yank liberals' chains, so it's entirely possible
> that this "converting everyone to Christianity" was nothing
> more than yanking the chains of the christian-haters in the
> liberal ranks.

I agree with this. My impression is that Coulter is someone who
tends to say occasionally outrageous things for the purpose of
riling others up without necessarily believing them herself (much
like Rosie O'Donnell, actually, except that Coulter is a heckuva
lot brighter). She instigates ("trolls" would be appropriate if
it didn't have such negative connotations on usenet). She may well
believe much of the stuff she says, but I think her larger purpose
is to get a large reaction from a certain audience, and her
believing or not believing what she says is incidental to her
larger purpose.

Catch you later.
--Robert Machemer

--
Robert Paul Aubrey Machemer | For each time he falls, he shall
Amherst College, Math & Classics | rise again, and woe to the wicked!
IF22: Cliff wins best film, cast | --Don Quixote (Man of La Mancha)
"Can't complain; had his chance, and in modern parlance, blew it."
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

"Bob-Nob" <bobnob15.RemoveThis@SPaMol.com> wrote in message
news:Xns996E55471680Fbobnob15aolcom@207.217.125.201...
> Fred Burton venit, vidit, et dixit:
>> "Pearly Soames" <mr_soames.RemoveThis@charter.net> wrote...
>>> Fred Burton wrote:
>
>>>> 3. Ann Coulter is not a lunatic. The lunatics are those
>>>> people who think that SHE is the lunatic.
>
>>> Do you believe that the problems in the Middle East can be
>>> solved by converting everyone to Christianity?
>
>> In a theoretical sense, yes. (BTW, I am not a "christian".)
>
>> But in reality, it would never happen.
>
> I agree with the second line, but I suspect I do not agree with
> the first (well, not the part about your not being a Christian).
> There are plenty of people in the Middle East who follow Islam
> but who still find reasons to hate other people who follow the
> same religion. Making them all Christian might just change the
> reasons for violence from "who was the first caliph" to "should
> we include the filioque clause in the Nicene Creed." It's not
> as if Christians haven't fought Christians before.
>
> <snip>
>
>> I don't think that it makes anyone a lunatic to think that
>> it would "solve" the problem. Rather, what I'd say is that
>> anyone who thinks that it's an IMPLEMENTABLE solution, is
>> probably a lunatic.
>
>> How this relates to Coulter, I think one has to know whether
>> she was serious or not. And whether she believes that the
>> idea was implementable or not. And remember, she has said that
>> she does like to yank liberals' chains, so it's entirely possible
>> that this "converting everyone to Christianity" was nothing
>> more than yanking the chains of the christian-haters in the
>> liberal ranks.
>
> I agree with this. My impression is that Coulter is someone who
> tends to say occasionally outrageous things for the purpose of
> riling others up without necessarily believing them herself (much
> like Rosie O'Donnell, actually, except that Coulter is a heckuva
> lot brighter). She instigates ("trolls" would be appropriate if
> it didn't have such negative connotations on usenet). She may well
> believe much of the stuff she says, but I think her larger purpose
> is to get a large reaction from a certain audience, and her
> believing or not believing what she says is incidental to her
> larger purpose.
>

I agree she is much brighter than Rosie. I also think she is much more
hateful. That's as much time as I care to waste on that one.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 09:25:06 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton.TakeThisOut@starfire.mv.com> wrote:

>
>"McDuck" <wallyDELETEMEMcDuck.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:mmbj93t79mams0gri1lsnoifrmqit1r09j@4ax.com...

>>
>> In brief, competitive balance is about revenue sharing. The cap is
>> about money for the owners. The NFL does have revenue sharing, and
>> that is the key to its limited success at competitive balance. It is
>> also famous for giving poor teams easier schedules.
>
>Baloney. The Cap *IS* most certainly and absolutely a means of helping
>to maintain competitive balance. Revenue sharing and parity scheduling
>wouldn't mean jackshit without the salary cap. If all of the sudden there
>was no salary cap and, say, the NY Giants could spend 5 times as much as
>the average team, don't lie thru your teeth and try to tell any sane person
>that that wouldn't have an impact on competitive balance, because it most
>absolutely would.
>
>
I have seen no evidence that the cap has contributed to competitive
balance. It was the tradeoff for free agency with the union. Revenue
sharing pre-dates that cap, and competitve balance did not change with
the cap, from the numbers I've seen.

Your example is nutty. With revenue sharing, where would NY Giants get
all that money --- from the private fortune of the owner? The stuff
you describe never happened before the cap, so why do you think it is
the cap that it preventing it?

I readily concede that the cap has some modest effect on competitive
balance. But it is minor. The big factor is revenue sharing. And the
point of the cap is to make the owners rich. Just look at the cap
rules and you see that. For example, a player gets signed for a huge
sum and then has a career-ending injury. That kills competitive
balance unless he can be replaced. But the cap says no. competitive
balance is about the teams on the field.

>>
>> Putting weights on horses is not about competitive balance. It is
>> about encouraging more betting.
>
>Baloney. Competitive balance encourages more betting.
>
Perhaps it does, but not my point and not a counter to my point.

If you think putting weights on a horse is about improving
competition, you have a nutty idea of competition. I mean, give me a
handicap of 100 and I'd kill Tiger Woods at golf. Would that be your
idea of a rule to promote competitive balance --- to let terrible
golfers beat great ones?
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 00:03:46 -0600, Steve Robbins
<srobbins31.TakeThisOut@no_spam_yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fred Burton wrote:
>> Well, Don, if Keith isn't an American, I apologize. But if he *is*
>> an American, it's pretty lame to be a baseball fan to the degree of
>> being in a NG with the rest of us yahoos, but to have no understanding
>> of NFL economics.
>>
>> I don't suppose that you're going to say that you don't understand NFL
>> economics (at a layman's level, that is)?
>
>Ummm....why is that? I follow baseball fairly well (as time
>constraints allow). And I am in a NG with you Yahoos (whomever makes
>up that group). Because what time I have goes into baseball, I only
>follow football casually. So you are saying that my baseball knowledge
>is worthless because I don't know in depth information about football
>economics? Sounds like a strange leap.
>
>IOW, your statement says I shouldn't be (or I am lame to be) in the Red
>Sox newsgroup because I don't understand NFL economics.

You are right except for one thing. Even if you have only a v. casual
knowledge of football, you almost certainly have a better idea of the
economics of football than Fred.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:52:41 -0400, "Fred Burton"
<fburton DeleteThis @starfire.mv.com> wrote:

>How this relates to Coulter, I think one has to know whether she was serious
>or not.

To have a high opinion of Coulter, one is forced to assume that she is
rarely serious.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 15:41:39 GMT, "gnork" <gnork44.RemoveThis@earthlink.net>
wrote:

> A
>big problem is that until we the people became very upset about the illegal
>issue, very little was done about it by either party. The Democrats see
>future constituients, future expansion of the government and they get to
>posture to the left about their great humanitarism. The Republicans see
>cheap labor for their big business friends.
>>

Immigation is an issue that divides both parties. Both parties have
political leaders who are anxious to reduce illegal immigration, and
both have leaders who see advantages to their party, etc., from
looking the other way, so to speak.

In fact, the issue is fairly complex. Of course, I agree with you
about mining the borders. Nutty on stilts. Anyway, the borders can be
bypassed (do we also mine airports and beaches?), and there is a
significant problem of the 12 million or more human beings already
over the border.

The compromise bill that the far right shot down would have cut back
on illegals and given limited rights to the illegals already here.
Problems with the plan, but it was a lot better than nothing IMHO.

I agree that enforcement of current rules could cut back on illegals,
but such enforcement is not easy and would not have as big an effect
as you suggest because in the end, the people enforcing the rules are
not as cruel as would be necessary to actually enforce the rules. You
actually agree --- you want to treat the sick and then send them home,
but the rules would not provide for that level of humanitarianism.

One current problem is with the seasonal agricultural workers. The
tougher provisions on immigration has had the perverse result of
having these people stay in the US all year instead of returning home
after the harvest season. And then they go on welfare or whatever to
get through the winter.

We have had tacitly open borders for a long time and have a huge
illegal population in place. It seems to me we need to separate the
two issues --- what to do with those already here and what to do with
the new ones trying to get in. Lots to debate because too favorable
treatment of those already in the country could increase the pressure
to bring in more. But if we do not treat those already here humanely,
we undermine political support for closing the borders and create a
lot of problems, quite aside from the fact that not treating people
humanly is not a nice thing to do (as you made clear yourself in your
post).

So, there is a need to get tough but not too tough, and the lines are
not easily drawn. My hope is that the people drawing the lines are not
people who think mining the border is a good idea.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future 

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:38:29 -0700, BadgerBC
<neilrichardson3819.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 15, 10:30 am, gclark <gcl....RemoveThis@noneya.net> wrote:
>> BadgerBC wrote:

>> Great post Neil.
>>
>
>Thanks Glen. How have you been?

Agreed. but I have an unrelated question: Have you read "Legacy of
Ashes" (about the CIA)? I have it on order.
 >> Stay informed about: ARod's future