Emily,
You are leaving something very important out of your article: WHEN does the private company get the go-ahead to go after the bad check writer? You make the senario so simple: Write a bad check and you get this call from the company. It sounds like my mother could end up being attacked by one of these companies for making a simple mistake. My gut tells me that is not the case. My gut tells me that a store would give me or anyone ample opportunity to make good on the check before sending it to a prosecutor. So I'm wondering whether we are talking about the "victims" of this scheme being people who made a simple mistake or people who have written bad checks and never intend to make good on them (e.g., thieves).

You can argue whether the companies are operating properly, ethically, and within the laws and constitution. But your senario implies that if I write a bad check innocently im in for a hell of a time with some company that makes me think its the county prosecutor's office.

If you stretch your argument to the point of obsurdity that is how it will be received. Maybe write about the percentage of bad check writers that end up in this mess or how many actually followed your senario of simply writing a bad check unknowingly and ended up being attacked. From what I have read, it is those bad check writers who's offense has made it all the way to the prosecutor's office. That is certainly not all bad check writers.

Sully,

Regardless of whether the check bouncers are deadbeats or not private collectors should NEVER be able to use the DA's name to threaten people. What's next? Outsource the practice too? How do you feel if the collectors work from India, Dubail, Iraq, Taliban controlled Pakistan? Hello Mr. Sullivan, this is the Al Qaeda Collection Agency and we can have the local DA send you to jail if you don't pay up Haliburton.

One more thing this is adding further proof that the law making process in this country is corrupt. Laws are whatever some corporate lobbyists pay enough lawmakers to put in whatever bills that must pass.

Sully,

Each state has it's laws on the books that covers writers of bad checks. There is no standard. I infact was harrassed by one of these companies when my wife ordered some magizines from some slick talking phone sales scammer. They told her that the bill was going to be $43.00 and change for the subscriptions and according to our state's law she had 3 days to change her mind. She called me and asked if it was ok and I told her she could as my wife dosen't ask me for much of anything extra. They told her that they prefered either a chech by phone or a visa debit card which she used. I checked our bank statement that month and the agreed amount was deducted. My wife usually handles the finances (paying the bills etc.) as I spend so much time at work. About 4 months later I just happened to look at the bank statement and there was a $43.00 and change charge against our account to an 800 telephone number, I questioned my wife about it and she said she didn't know anything about it. I told her to call about it the following day. She did and called me at work saying it was for the magizines. When I got home that night I pulled out all the bank statements and they all had that $43.00 charge on them. I told her to call them up and cancel the magizines. She called them and they told her that she couldn't, because it was past the 3 day grace period our state grants, and they refused to cancel the magizines.

The next day I contacted our bank and they said there was nothing I could do to recoup the money, and the only recourse I had was to close out our account and re-open another one with a different card number. Which I did. The following month is when she started receiving threatning letters from attorneys' offices threatning legal action if we didn't pay this ungodly sum of money over $350.00 for 2 magazine subscriptions. I wrote on the letter that we cancelled them and sent it back to the attorney's office. It wasn't 2 weeks later we started receiving threatning phone calls that we were going to have legal action taken against us, we would be reported to the credit bureau's and they were going to put a lein on my pay. They even tried to get my wife to tell them where I worked. I finally got tired of their crap and threatened to turn the whole matter over to our state's attorney generals office including my bank statements and an explaination as to the effect as to their deceptive phone tactics and practices. This was over 8 months ago. Most of the crap has stopped, but every so often (about once a month or so) we will get a call from some collection agencey (different one every the time) asking us to pay this bill that is supposedly owed. When I find out what it's about I politely inform the person (who has no idea what has gone on) what has transpired, what we did and what I threatened to do to that company, they apologize for bothering me and that's the last I hear until they try again to pull their stunts and turn it over to the next unsuspecting collection company. I have turned it over to the BBB and called the States Attorney's Office and that company is presently under investigation.

I do agree that if you inadvertantly write a bad check that most places will let you know and allow you to make payment, and yes if you don't make restitution I know of no place that doesn't have some kind of crimminal offense where bad check writers aren't arrested and either fined, put in jail or both. It is also illegal to impersonate someone who you aren't, and what gives these people the right to preform crimminal impersonation anyway?

Theres also the whole concept of having to pay fees that are sometimes in excess of State maximum fees. Is this fair? There's a reason that the state has set a 'maximum.' Using the DA's name to charge more than that is absurd.

Shoot, just look at the bankruptcy bill that passed some time ago. Its all about squeezing you for every penny that they can....bounced check fees, ATM surcharges, hidden taxes, etc., etc.

You're just a cow to be milked, pure and simple.

I should disclose that I am one of the people involved in this dispute, but it really is true that notice is not an issue. Sometimes the merchant give prior notice, sometimes not. It doesn't matter to ACCS. With some stores, ACCS goes straight to the store and picks up stacks of checks. ACCS' own phone scripts for its collectors instruct them that if a check writer says they didn't receive notice, the response should be: "It doesn't matter. If you don't pay, you may be prosecuted. [And as far as the check writer knows, the person telling them this is someone working in the prosecutor's office. The check writer doesn't know that this is an employee at a phone bank in Southern California who gets incentive bonuses based on how much money they bring in].

LabRat wrote:
"It is also illegal to impersonate someone who you aren't, and what gives these people the right to preform crimminal impersonation anyway?"

As I understand it from the links Emily provides above, the state prosecutor does. I think the state prosecutor should be answering these questions since they are the ones delegating this authority. Nothing in Emily's article about them though, and there are many. And the conditions for when and under what circumstances the prosecutor hands the offense over to the company varies from place to place as I found when reading the ACCS's "media coverage" website.

Emily, has anyone sued any of the prosecutors or ACCS for actions against them that broke any laws or constitutional rights?

I wrote:
"Emily, has anyone sued any of the prosecutors or ACCS for actions against them that broke any laws or constitutional rights?"

By checking more links I found the answer to my question. Yes as found under Emily's "taking on check diversion" link above. That suit is a class action in CA.

But what is really needed here is an interview with any of the many DAs who have rented their names to the ACCS to get their reactions to how the ACCS is operating.

Care? Care? This is the "Ownership Society"; caring is not a free market trait.

You ask for compassion from something that is a "process" by which the laws are determined not by humans, but by human interaction and reaction. The "process" is, and always will be, indifferent to human suffering without human intervention and compassion.

Religion AND Government are human inventions developed to mitigate the natural forces of ungoverned process that work by indifferent natural selection. Indeed, too much human interference can be damaging, but not nearly as damaging as the indifferent corrections of natural forces.

WE have collectively chosen this path for the time being and those who stand to benefit, for the time being, from such unrestrained free-marketism will fight to the death to defend it. Don't let the irony of a love of social and economic Darwinism with an all out war against science based on the same throw you off.

What makes the fight even harder, is that they have the money to wage a campaign against change, while all the people have is their collective anger, suffering and pain. It will take a while for such things to overcome well-financed defenses.

The answer is in the middle, but I will of course enjoy watching everyone takes sides...worrying more about being "right" then solving the problem.

The point about notice came up in the Public Citizen/NCLC press conference on this issue yesterday. The check diversion companies often say that the consumer gets notice and ten days to pay the check amount before they receive an "official notice" threatening them with prosecution, but the facts in many cases do not bear this out. Instead, consumers often get
no notice at all: The first time they hear of the problem may be when they get
the "official notice" from the check diversion company. For instance, in the case of Simona Pickett--a full-time U.S. Justice Department employee from
suburban Maryland who spoke at the conference yesterday--her first notice
of the problem came in the form of a letter on District Attorney letterhead
threatening her with criminal prosecution. In other cases, the consumer
gets no notice as a practical matter, because the notice period is so short
or because the notice goes to the wrong address.

The notice issue is among many being haggled over in Congress. Notably,
the check diversion companies have been resistent to suggestions that any
exemption be conditioned, at a minimum, on clear written notice to the consumer in advance of any threat of criminal prosecution, sufficient time for the consumer to pay the check amount, and a process for disputing the validity of any charges.

The notice problem is mentioned, among others, in this article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution highlighting the experience in DeKalb County, Georgia: http://www.citizen.org/documents/AJC.pdf. An investigative piece in the Des Moines Register discussed the disparity between threatened prosecutions and actual prosecutions: http://www.citizen.org/documents/DMR.pdf. Both articles demonstrate that these problems are not new. What's new is that Congress is considering exempting these companies from federal consumer protection standards.

This has apparently been going on for a while because I attended classes under a program in CA when I wrote a bad check.

I can't remember the exact name but I know that District Attorney was in the title. I wish I had seen your article 10 years ago, I had to pay for the classes which I think were around $100 in addition to all the bank and store fees.

In this age of rampant ID theft, don't assume that just because someone got a call from the collection sharks that he or she is a deadbeat. It could be your 80 year old grandma who got conned not once but twice, the second time in the name of the law!

Any DAs who rent out their name to the collection industrial complex should be removed or thrown out of office for corruption.

Deepak wrote:
"Both articles demonstrate that these problems are not new. What's new is that Congress is considering exempting these companies from federal consumer protection standards."

Are you the Deepak who is the lawyer in the class action against ACCS? If so how many people have sought federal consumer protections from the ACCS?

The more I read the more I find that not only are DAs allowing this, they are happy with it. I'm not sure what the effects would be if federal consumer protections are removed, but state protections, which I have used myself under similar circumstances, would remain. And lets remember that this is a state or county issue considering the authority to go after the bad check writer comes from the state or county DA. I am suspicious though when this congress goes out of its way to remove any consumer protection.

Sully,

You shouldn't be suprised. It is the same congress that tried to intervein in the Florida case with the woman who was brain dead and then tried to lie their way out as the speaker of the Senate did. It's business as usual for the Rewpublican led congress.

And you think it'll be at all different with the Democrats in charge? Bah! Its about $$$$, always has been, always will be.

But, if you're a major corporation, you just declare bankruptcy and walk away from the debt.

Face it, with the red commies in the WH, we're all in danger, especially the Middle Class.

I agree, we, the Citizens, are just cows to be milked and when we run out of that, then they send us off to slaughter, i.e., no pension (the Corp's file for bankruptcy and no more pension obligations, but bankrupt consumers must pay for every little stinking fee they levy), no affordable healthcare, no nothing.

But our fine Representatives in Congress get to keep their Campaign Money when they retire, the money they got from the people who paid them to make us their cows.

Now that is bestiality.
Just My Opinion

Hey I've got an idea! How about not writing checks you don't have the money to cover? Only in America would we complain about being punished for being fraudulent. I guess next it will be the Government's job to pay the expenses for your bad checks.

PC Gorilla,

I think you're missing the point. These people do not have an intent to defraud. It's a mistake that is liable to happen to anyone. I am a perfectly law abiding citizen, yet I have overdrafted by mistake on my bank account. It's absurd to think that I should be threatened with criminal prosecution for this.

Of course people who write bad checks should pay back the money, but they shouldn't be bilked out of extra money when they did nothing illegal.

Public Citizen has always been a coercive, fascistic movement. Just selectively so.

They have no problem ganging up with the trial lawyers and east coast DA's to screw the consumer on tobacco costs, fast food costs, "unsafe product" liability so they and the state get richer and the added costs are passed onto the consumer.

On the other hand, when others use the same abusive tools of force they use as SOP, "Public Citizen" are the first to blubber their "shock! and outrage!"

We are indeed in an "ownership society" as afghan Vet says - but it is not ownership of just companies, but of pushing the interests of all those owning the tools of power that matter - in milking the average American. Meaning it is not just an Agribiz fatcat that has the power to get a megamillion ethanol subsidy. A Jewish power broker can get a 100 million extra in tax dollars for Israel by paying 2 million in campaign contributions. A Congressman can get villas, vehicles, and paid courtesans for his defense votes. A DA like Schumer or Spitzer can imply that generous corporate donors are less likely to feel his prosecutory wrath than those that refuse to pass the buck for the greater glory of Chuck and Elliot. Dick Blumenthal can "fight tobacco" while deflecting huge tobacco fees to his former law firm, making him the rainmaker Rose Law only dreamed Hillary could have been.

And other "power brokers" who have milked us good are government employee unions, who have convinced us that more and more government employees with better compensation and benefits than they could get in the private sector are "Our Heroes" who will keep us safe as homeland security functionaries while drawing another full pay check for 20 years as a state cop, or yet another "superteacher" who will somehow educate a lazy, unmotivated, stupid kid intellectually inclined to no more than hoeing plants...

"Should check diversion companies like ACCS be exempted from the law that prohibits misleading consumers and making them pay more than they owe?"

They shouldn't.

Or does this simply open the door for abuses by debt collectors?

It does.

And what do you think of prosecutors' essentially renting out their authority to these private agencies?

Somehow it doesn't surprise me: For the right amount of money, 90% of this country's population will strangle their own parents.

In fairness to the said prosecutors though, compared to the individuals in other professions where salaries are funded with taxpayer dollars, e.g. law enforcerment, govn't bureaucracy, the military, etc, those guys are angels.

PC Gorrilla,
Here's an idea, how about not allowing private companies to masquerade as DAs so that they can extort more money than the state maximum penalty allows from average citizens that make a mistake? Wouldn't that be a novel idea. DAs that don't allow people to ignore state rulings and encourage it while taking a cut? Can you even imagine?

And does it surprise you, PC Gorilla? We've created companies thats sole purpose it to try to convince you to get their card, so that you buy things you can't afford and pay it back over time. Along these lines, they use cheap gimmicks that often don't match up with what their ads imply.

I like how you complain about Americans not wanting to be punished for being fraudulent while ok'ing a DA sponsored act of private companies masquerading as the DAs office. Nah, that's not hypocritical, right?

Chris Ford,

Your comments are incoherent. How would Public Citizen benefit from higher costs for consumers for products which they don't sell?

They're the only ones in this litigation who are not acting out of any financial motives.

OT -

Our "crown jewel", our vaunted civilian justice system, performed exactly as I expected it would on an unlawful enemy combatant.

If only the Nazi spies and saboteurs had received such "just treatment" in WWII! If the Nazi terrorists had achieved 30-35 million in tax dollars loss per person per trial, and caused thousands of champagne corks to pop in ACLU offices dedicated to advancing the cause of enemy rights? Even if their own terror plot had failed, I'm sure the Nazis would have built lots more subs and planes to drop off more Mongrel Race Killers - with the knowledge even of they failed to kill non-Aryans, Moussaoui-like outcomes awaited.

Moussaoui clapped at the verdict: "America You Lost! I Won!".

He did.

He avoided a military tribunal that would have found him an unlawful enemy combatant in a month for 1/30th the cost. He bled his enemy of multimillions and hundreds of lost man-years in his 5 1/2 year long "criminal civil liberties" fiasco. He had 12 of 12 jurors show he intended to kill thousands in illegal combat but didn't succeed, so he can't die for it...and 9 of 12 say by our moronic death penalty mitigating factors...by his tough childhood, he should be excused.

You gotta laugh.

Having civilians try an enemy soldier is like having the military being made responsible for administering justice in consumer fraud issues.

Stupid.

What's next?

1. Moussaoui pens a book and gives his family the multi-million dollar film rights to "My Struggle" to his mother, who is represented by an Israeli-owned Hollywood marketing firm. He becomes a full-time jail Mullah, making his life's mission to convert other jailed cons into murderous Islamoids.

2. The Almighty Victim Families of 9/11 complain that they are "re-traumatized, re-victimized" by the verdict and demand an additional million dollars per family for "increased Closure" costs.

3. Anti-Death penalty foes assure us that "righteous jailhouse lynch mobs" will "do the justice" they oppose the State from doing.

4. If they could, Binnie and company would be sending "well-done"!! notes to Moussaoui, the ACLU, and anyone who insisted that only civilian justice could best deal with enemy soldiers. They look for more Islamoids who had "unfortunate childhoods" thus exempt from death, to infiltrate America and maybe have Another Big Day For Islam!

5. Democrats like Jane Harmon and Chuckles Schumer, Republican slime like Spector - insist that the verdict proves American justice is fair and reasonable. Meanwhile, people in the ME all but pee in their pants at the weakness and gutlessness of USA law..

6. Certain Americans ask again why an enemy soldier operating outside all Geneva Rules of War is not best prosecuted by military justice people for Geneva violations...

the oil companies are already collecting their debt and reaping the return on their mighty investment. they collect their debt the old- fashion way by resorting to strong armed tactics like hi- way robbery. it is a stick up put gas in your tank and give me all your money. driving is a priviledge but it dont feel like it lately.

I would elect a board of lawyers to suggest legislation to correct these kinds of behaviour...

preemptive rulings, ones it looks "like" this other case but it hasn't been acted on, come to court yet....it's a class of crime kinda thing....

bankruptcy laws, overtime, gun laws...

they've all been passed within the last 5 years to protect corporations from you.

nothing has been done to protect you from corporations

in fact your president is robbing the General Fund to pay for his fathers and his buddies occupation of an oil rich nation and area....

to make sure that they get to own the new set of condos in the BVI (British Virgin Islands) that your tax dollars helped pay for....

don't you love it?

I know what I'd like to do with some hemp or sisal.....

.

lone "terrorist" has been

_whatever_

who cares?

what kind of sneakers was he wearing? big deal...move on...

we're talking about millions of people not a singular element, your country, your corrupt politicians,

international corporations that outsource your jobs,

sell pieces of American companies and end retirement benefits as they remove your ability to fight back by holding

"you might lose your job if you fight back"

over your head,

as they try to find new peasants to replace you.

.

_he_

the sole purported visible example of the one whom your government _says_ perpatrated _something_ or at least talked about it...and who apparently doesn't like you all...

who cares

_he_ might just disappear...get a face change....move to Miami....you'll see a computer generated image...aged and everything...prove otherwise...for the next 20 years...

.

lone "terrorist" has been

_whatever_

who cares?

what kind of sneakers was he wearing? big deal...move on...

we're talking about millions of people not a singular element, your country, your corrupt politicians,

international corporations that outsource your jobs,

sell pieces of American companies and end retirement benefits as they remove your ability to fight back by holding

"you might lose your job if you fight back"

over your head,

as they try to find new peasants to replace you.

.

_he_

the sole purported visible example of the one whom your government _says_ perpatrated _something_ or at least talked about it...and who apparently doesn't like you all...

who cares

_he_ might just disappear...get a face change....move to Miami....you'll see a computer generated image...aged and everything...prove otherwise...for the next 20 years...

.

Hey I've got an idea! How about not writing checks you don't have the money to cover?
Posted by: PC Gorilla | May 3, 2006 4:13:58 PM

One wonders when was the last time PC Gorilla looked at our national debt or current deficit. Or if he/she has EVER bounced a check in their entire lifetime.

I think the one point we might be able to all agree on is the need for legal fairness, fundamental fairness, to all parties in dispute.

This requires ethics.

There is nothing new about human nature.
When they figured out long ago that it is truly humanly impossible to serve two masters, I think you can take to the bank.

Government is for the common good of the people and should not be lining its pockets with a shadely little deal like this, which reminds of my observation about business men.

If a business man could, he would get a law passed that required everyone to buy his product.

You gotta laugh.
Stupid.
Posted by: Chris Ford | May 3, 2006 5:51:20 PM

That's how I feel about EVERY post of yours, Chris Ford. Your Moussaoi rant was a perfect example of how self-defeating you are with your right wing extremism. Keep up the bad work, loser. LOL! : )

from the olde people,

to pay for the "occupation" while putting your country in debt ot China...

to finance their _oil futures market_ using your country to control their and manage their market investments....

yes, the corporates are leading your country...the Defense Department is the largest check coming from the government banks....

and that doesn't include black corporations...

.

require the government

congress,

the judicial system,

the executive system to

obey the same laws you do...

do the Guilliani _thing_

talk about it, it'll happen,

the other things have been having an effect, you're not powerless...

a coherent idea is like a wavefront.

.

remove doubt, act decisively, kick some ess...............

.

not everyone has been appointed by Bush.

there are CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service and others that could remove this cabal,

and restore the United States to a reasonable facsimilie of honest government...

they arressted the Watergate burgalars, olde friends of geo h.w. bush...(bay of pigs failures) before,

they can do it again!

comeon CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service arrest the terrorists!

take back your country.

remove the coup!!!!!

.

Chris Ford thinks it's the end of the world that Moussaoui gets a life sentence instead of the death penalty, yet he could care less if Osama bin Laden is captured or not. Just goes to show that the War On Terror will never be won if we let the likes of him wage it. Only a moron like Chris Ford would think capturing a foot soldier is more important than nabbing the top general.

If there is anything funnier than civilians trying an unlawful enemy combatant with predictable results, it is a Marcusian traitor like ErrinF saying she actually wants her "Moby Dick" caught so a jury of 12 civilians can explore Binnie's childhood "Father abuse issues" as exculpatory or not.

And....

Only a rather stupid traitor like ErrinF pretends this is not a war of ideology commenced by the Islamoids out on another Jihad -
But instead, a small crime wave directed by a single evil "Mastermind" who needs to meet with his ACLU lawyers ASAP so his "precious enemy rights" are defended.

get lost in your little niche of hate.

he is nothing.

unimportant...

less important than a non-renewable energy source,

less important than outsourcing,

less important than corporate greed,

less important than internationalization and downsizing....destroying your country, if it is your country, for all I know you're in orange in Oklahoma...from the tangents you take, and you've not answered my questions if you're white supremacist or aryan nation....that's sort of suspicious, not that I would care, it would just explain the narrowness of your focus and your referral to 30 years ago as the most active part of your memory.

.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights exists to protest us from the excesses of a tyrannical government oppressing those that grant it the right to govern over them, not the rights of those actively trying to kill any and all of us by any means possible. Trying to apply courtroom rules to those that by definition, do not respect any of the civilized rules in their conduct toward us is pure folly. If anyone like ErrinF truly thinks people like Zacarias Moussaoui deserve the protections outlined in the Bill of Rights then this nation owes millions of dead German and Japanese uniformed troops a sincere apology for not respecting their right to due process. No more or less.

Not to mention the apologies ErrinF owes to those at Nuremberg, where, unlike what 9 of 12 of his civilian US jurors voted, having a mean Dad and an abusive mother was not enough to exhonorate Nazi war criminals from the tribunal meting out death sentences for violating the rules of war.

Knew this would happen. Having civilians judge enemy combatants like Moussaoui as a criminal vs. a soldier conducting illegal war - makes as much sense as assigning military justice tribunals to handle all product liability lawsuits in the USA.

http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/2304/1/1/

Wisconsin Bill to Ban Coerced Chip Implants
The state's legislative branch passed a bill banning anyone from implanting RFID microchips into people without their consent.

[cropped by a very annoyed Emily. Che, you seem to have the memory of a gnat. Once again, I direct you here:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2006/03/is_it_civil_war.html#comments
***Please***
Headline and link only.
Try for some reasonable approximation of 'on topic.'
Thank you.]

He hee...

2004: "Darn you mainstream media, you're ignoring a US ambassador whose visit to Niger exposed Bush!"

2005: "Darn you mainstream media, you're ignoring a UK official whose memo to 10 Downing exposed Bush!"

2006: "Darn you mainstream media, you're ignoring a comedian whose performance at a press roast exposed Bush!"

Playing the mental illness card allows the blind to continue deluding themselves about what University of London, King's College, professor Efraim Karsh calls Islamic imperialism. Jihadists didn't start claiming war on non-believers in 2001 or 1993 or 1948. They have aspired to conquer for ages. These historical claims are "frequently dismissed by Westerners as delusional, a species of mere self-aggrandizement or propaganda," Karsh writes in his new book. "But the Islamists are perfectly serious, and know what they are doing. Their rhetoric has a millennial warrant, both in doctrine and in fact, and taps into a deep undercurrent that has characterized the political culture of Islam from the beginning."
Yet, the bleeding hearts foolishly and suicidally persist with their Poor Little Jihadist propaganda and call for sympathy and understanding for the Root Causes that fueled the 9/11 hijackers, Moussaoui, convicted Islamic shoebomber Richard Reid, the Muslim gunman who murdered two people at Los Angeles International Airport's El Al ticket counter in 2002, and the Koran-invoking Tar Heel terrorist who rammed his SUV into a busy student square at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. And on and on.

On Monday, while Moussaoui's defense team played their violins in court, apologists across Europe and the Muslim world played the same song for the suicide bomber who murdered nine innocent civilians and wounded scores more at a Tel Aviv restaurant. The bomber packed his explosives with nails and shrapnel soaked in rat poison to increase the suffering of the victims.

Police had to pick bits of flesh off the blood-drenched streets and parked car windshields.

But it's not the fault of terrorist Sami Salim Mohammed Hammed and his sponsors at Islamic Jihad. Blame "Israeli aggression" and "anti-Arab racism"!

The dry-eyed know there is one Root Cause for this carnage. It's not America, Israel, racism or psychological imbalances. It's evil. Just evil.

Has anyone, er, driven Ford lately?

The problems we are having in government today are competely independent of the economy itself. Back in 2000, George W. Bush assured us that if elected, his program of tax cuts and pro-business growth policy would result in a rate of economic growth sufficient to fund the government's needs.

Well, if Bush's economic numbers are to be believed--and there is a good deal of debate on that--we should be enjoying a boom in tax revenues sufficient to fund all of the public's demands on government. Yet, under Bush's management, the national debt and the annual deficit has reached historic levels.

The question is why? If supply side economics is such a great economic theory, why is it that every time it is applied, it gives us crusing national debt and annual deficits for as far as the eye can see? The answer is in the assumptions the proponents make. They assume that spending will remain either constant or even will diminish. That assumption has never held. They also assume that the added revenue flowing into the business sector will translate into domestic plant expansion, additional jobs thereby increasing tax revenues to the government. That assumption has never held either.

The assumptions that supply side economists make have the same ring that the assumptions the neoconservative foreign policy advisors around Bush have made: They rely on faith more than realistic assessments of what human beings will do in a given situation. The business sector did not expand their domestic operations; they plowed their investments into the offshore ventures that were exploding under our trade policies. That is why domestic employment and national income levels have not kept pace.

So what is the problem with governemt then? The same as with the argument that supply side economic polices will result in increased government revenues and lower spending. It is a complete misreading of human behaviour. Just as the supply siders misread what business would do with its boon in tax cut revenues, so too in the running of our day-to-day government, do the supply siders miss what governme human behaviour. Individual Congressmen want to maintain their power in Congress. You don't do that by cutting the spending programs the public favors.

It is typical human behaviour to want something for nothing. The biggest problem we have in the running of our government is that our politicians are heavily incentivized to tell people that they can have something for nothing--the so-called "free lunch".

So, what do we get? More tax cuts and more spending. That is the end result of supply side tax and spending policies.

PCG said "Hey I've got an idea! How about not writing checks you don't have the money to cover? Only in America would we complain about being punished for being fraudulent. I guess next it will be the Government's job to pay the expenses for your bad checks."

Well, when the government itself is writing more and more bad checks every day, using my social security reserves and making it so my 15yo son owes $50,000 because of Bush's failure to balance the budget - why should you want us to be any different?

I blame the lack of morals in the WH and Congress.

This does not surprise me. The credit card companies and banks all lobbied and gave Bush and the Republicans money. Look who's calling the shots now? In the last 6 months, I have seen interest go up on my credit cards, which I have always paid on time.

In fact, if this economy is so "great", like Bush keeps touting, why are my property taxes going up every year? We need street repair out front and our city is charging us 8000.00 at 5% interest for 20 years. (there goes an increase in our house payment again). Because of the hurricanes, 99% percent of home insurance went up, even though I live in Minnesota.

If the economy is so great, why are people writing bad checks in the first place? And why would they even care that gas has gone up? We have a great economy folks!! Spend all that extra money that you have!

At the rate this current administration is taking this country, I'm getting more and more inclined to sell my house and car because I just can't afford the basics anymore. Great economy we have!!!

We used to live comfortably, and now at the age of 50, everything is a squeeze and paycheck to paycheck. I did not think this would happen at this stage in my life.

Power corrupts. I fear this Executive, have no faith in the Judicial and am ashamed of the Legislature.
What would Davey Crockett do?
Who now holds to the personal sense of honor that we once held dear?
Know this,(1 Tim 3:1-5)in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here. Men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, self assuming, haughty, blasphemers,disobediant to parents,unthankful, disloyal,having no natural affection, not open to agreement,slanderers without self control, fierce, without love of goodness, betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godly devotion but proving false to its power; .....
Gosh, that sounds like now.

Wow, what is up with you Chris Ford. Now, I see no merit to those who come after you personally, but what is with all of your anger?

What are you angry about? That people don't think like you? Or see things like you? I don't get it.

Other than revenge and blood lust, exactly WHAT is accomplished by putting someone to death? Especially someone who never actually killed anyone?

Also, since the laws of land warfare have not evolved to cover exactly what to do with non-nation-state-aligned terrorists we are operating in a very fuzzy area. An area that this administration WANTS to keep fuzzy because it allows them to do all kinds of unlawful and unethical things as long as we never clearly define whether an NNSA terrorist is a combatant or a criminal.

Furthermore, since we have never officially declared war against a nation or even a group then what to do with Prisoners of War or Enemy Combatants? See, if this administration and country et al wanted to really SOLVE the problem, we would work to define within the purview of the laws of this nation and internationally accepted laws of war exactly WHAT we are fighting and how to process those we capture.

You seem to have a very romantic view of death, war and killing. If you need an outlet for that anger, if you are so convinced that killing is the answer...than come on in and join the big team for the big win. Seriously, no Yellow Elephant stuff here. Join up, get trained and serve in the ONLY capacity where decisive actions is almost always in the context of black and white...the battlefield.

I wonder where all this anger would go when you actually have to look through that scope or sight picture and pull the trigger.

Killing is very easy when someone else can do it for you. Even snipers THINK about it...even when they are really bad bad people. Taking a human life is the ultimate decisive act. Since none of us KNOW what happens afterward, we are making a pretty strong judgment.

I wonder how many executions would take place if a victim or a victims relative had to flip the switch or push the plunger. How many could actually look another man in the eye and take their life? I bet not many; and those that could would probably tell a different tale later on in their life.

If you can kill with indifference, regardless of the situation, you are a sociopath. HAVING to kill and WANTING to kill are two very different things.

So please, find the root cause of your anger and work with it. And, if you really want to put yourself to the test, enlist and get in the fight. We can always use well-motivated soldiers.

But, please take it down a notch as you usually have something to contribute.

Found out a bounced a check this morning. You know what I did? Walked outside, raised my fists in the air and shouted at the top of my lungs:

"Damn you Bush! Damn you to HELL!!!"

'Cause we all know that personal irresponsibility is the fault of those dastardly neocons!

Well, actually, what we've learned from the NEO-TARDS is that one need only TALK about personal responsibility, not actually engage in any such activity.

Neo-Tard? Someone fancies themselves a Steven Colbert!

Speak Truth to Power Dude!

Afgan Vet

Though I don't agree too much with your take on things and also Ford's, I guess you grow and start looking at things in a slightly different light as you age. One thing though you do have right is it is quite different when you have to pull the trigger. After being in a senseless war all ready I look at this war a little different. One thing you had that many of us didn't was respect from this nation for our coerced service. You see I didn't have a choice, Vietnam was mandatory if your number came up unless you were a Bush or a Cheney. I agree though that Ford needs to do something about his unbrideled anger, but from my experience with his type, either he's all ready gone off the deep end and would be the cause of a slaughter of innocent civillians for no reason or more than likely end up bawling his eyes out then puking his guts out the first time he he had to kill another human being.

Don't know how on-topic this is by I'm going to echo Jaxas' point. It's clear so many years later that Supply Side Economics fails its own projections and that any evaluation of it should be absent the ever present falsehood "cuts lead to growth leads to higher revenues." Cute idea, empirically unsound. A cursory examination of the CBOs historical data on Government spending/revenue since 1962 should quickly put such notions to rest. Government revenue has increased every year since excluding 5: 1971, 1983 (Reagan), 2001, 2002, and 2003 (Bush, Bush, more Bush).

Tax cuts are always easy to pass because electorates hate taxes. Likewise electorates hate spending cuts. The result is an awesome expansion of government services while the revenue necessary to fund said expansion is simultaneously depleted.

The Good Times Will Soon Be Over.

While the President's party has happily been soaking the economy in economic growth with ludicrous government spending and money-borrowing, the reasonable among us realized that something just doesn't smell right. For our kids that is.

We cannot afford the 200 billion dollars a year we pay to service the debt. And the reason this number is 200 billion, and not 400 billion, is twofold a) We borrow billions of Social Security revenue a year and make interest on it and b) We happened to be fiscally responsible in the late 90s and serviced some of the debt, substantially decreasing how much we owed in debt interest. a) will soon be over when the baby boomers really start enjoying the welfare state. Soon Social Security will be borrowing from other programs as the ratio of workers:retirees continues to plummet. We're already feeling the results of b) as last year marked the largest annual increase in national debt interest since 1995... I'll say it again. The Good Times Will Soon Be Over.

Something is rotten in the kingdom of Denmark.

This government's decidedly flawed. From the other end of the periscope, however, each nation deserves its government.

That those tax cuts would benefit mainly the financially affluent should have been clear as early as 2000.

I really wanted to fry him...

he makes me so mad, my dad was mean to me, and I like to get mad at people and jump up and down and make big dangerous faces like my dad...

then people will like me, like my dad...

prosecuting congress, the judicial system, and the executive branches to serve the nation

and it's citizens,

rather than themselves.

as the Afghan Vet said, it takes no courage to send someone else into battle, especially if you've never gone because dad got you a cush position flying planes for the National Guard

when it was convenient for you to show up...

rewarding cowardice by making him president is good for our moral fibre,

I think we should go to war with Iran, then we'll control all of the oil, in the Middle East, and I'll be able to buy Switzerland with my share,

what are you going to buy with your share?

huh?

Well said, Random.

There hasn been no news of Christopher lately. Apparently, Lab Rat's harsh denunciations shamed him to silence.

CORPORATIONS:

protection from your bankruptcies, while they sent your jobs overseas and you lost yours

no paid overtime, as you had to work longer hours and do more because they got to downsize and sell your jobs to people in Bombay

pharmaceutical companies, were protected from having to compete with other countries for fair drug prices by a presidential intervention...as old people sought cheaper drugs in Mexico and Canada...

CITIZENS:

got to pay more out of their social security benefits for medicine, even though they are on fixed income...to make sure the president had enough money to fund his oil gathering expedition.

got to pay more taxes so that the upper 3% in income could avoid paying their fair share, as we all know that they sent their kids over to fight for our oil rights....

got to send their children overseas to be destroyed in IED explosions because dimwit left 250,000 tons of explosive unattended as he was having the "Mission Accomplished" banner printed up....

the National Guard got it's third _automatic reup_ extended until 2030 as a new patriot act extension....

Katherine Harris can't get elected even though she gave the Florida election to bush over Gore in 2000...

I wonder if she'll put out for the press?

video...and if you want to eat a hippie, I'll put on a wig for a few minutes as long as you eat me.........

he hee

.

Bush and GOP Hill leaders have decided that a return to the themes of tax cuts and fiscal responsibility will give them a boost in the midterm elections. As one Washington-based Wall Street analyst then commented, there's arguably an oxymoron in there, as Bush continues to press for tax cuts in a time of war.

In his remarks yesterday, Bush repeated his case that his tax cuts have boosted the economy and that in order to keep the economy strong, the cuts must be made permanent.

In the same speech, he repeated his commitment to halving the deficit by 2009. This analyst asks, "A serious question for Republican leaders is, given just how good they say the economy has been, if now isn't the time for serious deficit reduction, when is the right time?"

Lab Rat - You dodge. You intimate that you did national service because it was mandatory without saying it directly. Leading me to conclude that you never did serve, but wish to lead others to believe it, since you're not too proud - like so many of your generation - of failure to serve or failure to have the guts, skill, and will to win.

We redeemed your sort in the Gulf War, one way or the other.

"more than likely end up bawling his eyes out then puking his guts out the first time he he had to kill another human being."

Another thing that leads me to know your are clueless about the military and take your cues from Hollywood stereotypes. You feel an ache for someone you know was killed on your side. Nothing for the enemy. In fact, I have killed, as long as you recognize killing involves more than being a triggerman, or just a pilot dropping a bomb or the weapons officer punching out a cruise missile. Killing is a "team thing". I found and targeted a warehouse hiding Soviet BMPs - we got six and killed and an estimated 9-12 Iraqis. We felt pride, a sense of mission completion, and at best a dull pity for the poor bastards that never knew what hit them, while wishing we had gotten more. That was just one I know about...likely I indirectly killed more (I hope).

Crying for Ho Chi Minh and all the poor VC was your generation's ruling Lefty elite way to self-indulge yourself with. Imagining soldiers there psychologically destroyed from serving. Always was a bad Hollywood myth. The truth was the Vietnam Vets were more successful, better off with less crime and mental disease in later life than their peers never in the military. And, according to the VFW, over 75% are very proud they served.

Notice how Chris Ford has avoided addressing the truth that he considers Moussaoui more important than Osama bin Laden when it comes to the War On Terror. You may have noticed that he's a tad unhinged as well.
Hey, Chris, maybe if the prosecution team were more competent, Moussaoui would have gotten the death penalty. What, did Bush appoint Michael Brown to run the prosecution as well? Remember the OJ trial and how he got off because his defense team was better than the prosecution team? Same case here. I for one am patriotic enough to stand behind whatever decision was made by the jury of 12 American citizens. You however are unpatriotic and put your politics before country and Constitution each and everytime, what with being a twisted reactionary wacko. It's funny how, when it comes down to it, your political view is revolves entirely around your personal anger and hatred. No wonder so many people here find you so vile and repulsive. What's sad is the fools here that buy into your 'factoids' or that you ever speak to the truth.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_723.shtml

Who is behind "Al Qaeda in Iraq"? Pentagon acknowledges fabricating a "Zarqawi Legend"
By Michel Chossudovsky

Afghan Vet goes smarmy:

1. "I wonder how many executions would take place if a victim or a victims relative had to flip the switch or push the plunger. How many could actually look another man in the eye and take their life? I bet not many"

In cultures where the victims decide and do mete out punishment in a blood-for-blood setting, there is little hesitation. In fact, if you allowed victims families to decide the fate of murderers, instead of 20 years of ACLU, lawyers buffers, and duie process -- there would be far more executions in the USA than there are today.

2. "If you can kill with indifference, regardless of the situation, you are a sociopath. HAVING to kill and WANTING to kill are two very different things."

That's another fatuous statement that makes me think your "AfghanVet" byline is just some Lefty pose. In the big scheme of things in wartime, you have to kill to win, unless you are willing to lose by your pacifism and accept the consequences of defeat. But don't think for a moment that soldiers don't attack WANTING to kill the enemy to save their asses, their comrades, and people back home. And kill not exactly with indifference - but with fear, exhultation, and cool detachment to the enemy target taken out.

Something any soldier knows, and which puts you as somewhat of an abherration or worse, an outright fraud for calling Marines storming a beach or Army Airborne hitting a Taliban stronghold and kill or capture the enemy - even get distinguished medals for extraordinary feats of combat..."sociopaths????"

If you ever wore a uniform, you disgrace it and your comrades with "sociopath" remarks. Or you're a fraud. If I saw you on the street, I'd spit on you either way.

3. "So please, find the root cause of your anger and work with it. And, if you really want to put yourself to the test, enlist and get in the fight. We can always use well-motivated soldiers."

More crap. "Root cause" of the people angry at Moussaoui is that he came here on behalf of the Islamoid enemy, seeking to attack us and kill thousands of us.

4. "Other than revenge and blood lust, exactly WHAT is accomplished by putting someone to death? Especially someone who never actually killed anyone?"

Gee, you sure sound like a Vet here as well!
Try starting with the legal reasoning why 8 Nazi saboteurs here in the US got death even if they hadn't yet used their bombs ---for just trying to bring down our buildings while violating rules of war and entitled to no POW protection. Then you might look up the 9-0 Supreme Court decision and see what flaws you can find in the Justices vote.
If you think killing the enemy or meting out death to unlawful combatants is nothing more than "revenge and bloodlust" take it up with the Founders, who happily executed Major Andre (he was just a poor spy trying to kill hundreds but never succeeded because he got caught) and others fighting outside the rules of war..And reconsider your Internet ID as a "Vet" to something more in line with your "love thine enemy, turn the other cheek" pacifist philosophy.

5. "Furthermore, since we have never officially declared war against a nation or even a group then what to do with Prisoners of War or Enemy Combatants?"

It's a Lefty legalistic dodge. No nation has formally declared war in over 60 years, since the UN CHarter emplaced treaties, signed, ending the practice of diplomatically formally declaring war. The last such was the Soviets declaring war on Japan in 1945. But then some fixate on archaic language in the US Constitution predating the UN that says Congress must declare war - though even before the UN Congress found it convenient to NOT declare war in most instances where America used military force. In their trite, infantile minds - the US is legally paralyzed by conflicting legal language that prevents us from all war by law...mandatory pacifism. All wars are illegal unless formally declared, but any formally declared war violates the UN Charter...and no Lefty would ever advocate that!!

Ford, you seem to prove AfghanVet right, whether you mean to or not. You claim to have killed. Your example however, has little to do with what he was saying though. In your 'act of killing' you weren't the sole person, nor is it clear that you were the one that directly pushed the button, pulled the trigger, initiated the killing yourself. You hide behind the 'we' and the concept of 'team.' Which is exactly what AfghanVet is is talking about. You didn't make the choice. And if you think that group mentality or in group vs. outgroup doesnt have effect on the matter, please look at a basic psych course book.

Hell, you even use the term "estimated" when describing how you killed someone. You don't even know exactly. They were in a warehouse. Please, actually address AfghanVet's situation. Changing the subject means you don't actually respond to what he was saying. You're just try to make people think you are.

Not to mention you claim that you were "wishing you got more." Hmmm. Is that your address at AfghanVet's comment of being a sociopath?

I just hope our government, wakes up and worries less about their pensions and a little more about their country and arrest

bush, cheyney, rumsfield, goss, Negroponte and a few other appointed men of the geo h. w. bush legacy of corruptions.....

cheers.

that would be appropriate, lands sold, property auctioned off....

liquidations....yes

You've heard it here first, folks. Chris Ford Spits on War Veterans:
"If I saw you on the street, I'd spit on you either way"

I'm making a big angry face like my daddy, who never came home but used to hit my mom a lot before I was born....

Petty overdrafts leading to hugely overmagnified claims -- it seems as if every little somebody wants to spring into indignation and turn it into a (relative) financial windfall. Call it the California disease.

Think about the $3 charge at the ATM to get 20 bucks from a networked machine. Or the cross-default clause that means when a person is late by a few days on one company's credit card payment, then an entirely separate company is legally entitled to escalate interest charges. The coup, however, was the changes in individual bankruptcy law to impose years of indentured servitude (post bankruptcy) on the unfortunate.

There is no more reciprocity between creditor and debtor obligations. The creditor doesn't accept much less than zero risk of loss of capital in exchange for lofty rates. Even the falsely identified debtor has the burden to show they don't have an obligation to pay.

What I learned from working over a quarter century in the fixed-income securities division of a bank, can be summarized as follows: All debt is a form of slavery.

The spooky thing about the emergent clever little rules to screw the ordinary harmless individual experiencing an occasional lapse in petty retail financial affairs is this: They are structured so that they really, really, promote and seek out individual mistakes to turn their tricks.

The reconstruction farmer signing-over half his crop and any equity interest in his property to get credit for some bags of guano got more respect.

In other news, the Stephen Colbert incident this weekend really exposed the Washington press for the bunch of second-rate shills they are. First, they tried to bury the incident and ignore it. Because that failed and the video is all over the web, they are now resorting to personal attacks on Cobert's 'funniness'. Most pathetic is Richard Cohen's recent piece, as well as Dana Milbank's, both WaPo shills. It is so painfully obvious that these brownnosers are trying to earn points with the politicians they want access to. It also shows that the Washington press is more likely to spin and manipulate than to inform. Dan Froomkin has been the only one here on the level about the whole incident.
I for one am applying tougher standards to these Washington journalists, as I didn't realize just how agenda-filled they often are. Nor did I realize how second rate they were... again, smarter Americans find better fields to get into than journalism and politics. For such second-tier caliber people to think of themselves as some sort of 'elite' is a joke. Conforming and kowtowing to the establishment press doesn't make one 'elite'... it makes one beholden to the political elite. The political class, which includes the political parties and the press that covers them, are failing our country, and have been for some time.
Unfortunately, Emily Messner and this blog are an example of such. This blog is essentially a fluff piece disguised as political debate. Emily's take on things is often little more than a high school speech class take on political debate. No real effort is made to actually solve problems, find solutions, or to progress forward. Just a diluted discussion of pre-assigned topics in a clinical, impotent way. For instance, this 'check diversion' topic couldn't be more irrelevant to what's going on today. Emily merely wants to abstractly discuss big money and big politics, not actually do anything about the situation. No wonder so much off-topic discussion goes on in this blog these days; The bloggers are obviously tuning out Emily's fluff pieces to instead discuss issues that matter. The collusion of money and politics does matter, of course, just not in the way Emily has addressed it so far. Which is why we are discussing Moussaoui and Colbert instead.
And, though I'll occassionally pop up here, I have realized that the blogosphere was created for the alternative press and media, not for the mainstream press to try it's second-rate shenanigans. There are a million better blogs out there than anything WaPo has put forth. I invite everybody to give them a try and see if the WaPo blogs compare. You will find that your time is better spent elsewhere if you are really serious about the issues. If you want superficial fluff discussion about important issues, by all means stay here where perpetuating the status quo (i.e. no change) is more important than real progress (i.e. real change). Careerists like Emily Messner, Richard Cohen, and Dana Milbank will be happy to have you here.

ErrinF wrote of Chris Ford:

". . . when it comes down to it, your political view is revolves entirely around your personal anger and hatred."
___________

What's the problem with unconcealed anger? John McCain wouldn't be where he is today without a good slug of it. As to hatred, that's a bit more nuanced. The person who doesn't hate something in particular, is a person without character or with no senses. Even Moses threw down the tablets. Jesus chased the money changers out of the temple.

Imputing motivations to other people is a pretty immature preoccupation; really a reflection of a type of mental laziness and a lack of critical thought. Where there is anger or hatred, I'm curious to know exactly why they have their passion. Maybe there's something to learn.

Chris & his war stories... Don't be ridiculous, Ford.. Face it: you are too dumb even for the army.

Emilio-

Constructive stab at the hundreds of thousands of Americans serving in the army. Thanks again for your valuable contribution to this blog.

Postscript: Ass.

EffinF writes dumbly - "I for one am patriotic enough to stand behind whatever decision was made by the jury of 12 American citizens."

No doubt she is patriotic enough to stand behind whatever decision the Supreme Court makes - also due to her anal-obsessive disorder. Which of course normal Americans refuse to do when they know an OJ Jury or a Dred Scott, Plessy Ferguson decision get things wrong. OJ then gets raped in a civil proceeding that disregards his get out of prison race card draw, and SCOTUS was overturned.

In this case, I agreed with the jury's call. Not it's "Poor abused Moussaoui" rationale of why. But because I thought they were unfit to try a soldier like Moussaoui and would have no choice but to not convict - on grounds criminal law is unfit to try enemy combatants. No more than the military should try Wall Street fraud cases..Laws and courts are set up to work in certain spheres...military, civilian, juvenile, probate. When one court in one sphere tries grabbing a case that should be administered in the court with the laws and systems originally set up to try it, a mess generally results. If the jury had a modicum of intelligence, belied on how easily they were suckered by the "behind every terrorist is a mean mom and an abusive Dad excuse" - they would have rejected it as trying to extend to all persons tried in court that they could be given death for lying to government employees or not waiving the 5th and be given death for a conspiracy doing a crime they had no knowledge of or involvement in.

EffinF - " Moussaoui more important than Osama bin Laden when it comes to the War On Terror."

No one is saying that. Just a psychological projection banging around in your traitorous mind under your tinfoil hat.

EffinF - "your political view is revolves entirely around your personal anger and hatred."

Funny how most Americans political view revolved around their personal anger of the 9/11 hijackers and hatred of Islamoids seeking to kill Americans and other infidels here and abroad! Of course, Bush's mistakes have given Marxists like you an excuse to push back and reclaim some ground lost in your enemy-loving ways by claiming Bush is the enemy too. But have no doubt the "anger" is there even in many of the people that hate Bush and are Democrats, but patriotic ones...just waiting for the next Islamoid attack and ACLU/Marcusian excuse-makers to emerge again to allow their pent up anger to explode even more than after 9/11.

EffinF - "No wonder so many people here find you so vile and repulsive."

Not surprising at all. I find your reaction as an anti-American Marxist traitor to what I have to say - almost identical to the reaction I got from anti-American, pro Islamoid students at U of Cairo.

Peas in an pod in your looking to failed ideologies for how you should think.

Anti-Westerner/Anti-Asians have a certain commonality in their thoughts and ad hominems. They seeth and rage at the Indians and Asians visiting their boards as well as "evil, vile, godless people who should also die after the Americans and Jews do".

The Asians are particularly adept at rubbing in the fact that they were poorer than the Arabs by far just 60 years ago, now are many times more prosperous because their civilization, like the Wests, is infinitely superior to what the Cairenes who support the Muslim Brotherhood will ever attain..Most stinging are the Egyptian emigres that write that Arab backwardness is the problem, not the Jews or Europeans - because they are seeing people in other countries they work in - Malaysia, Latin America, Indonesia, Dubai - moving ahead "while Islamism is causing Egypt to decay further".

The Islamoids are even bigger conspiracy believers than the Far Left. In 2004, the Big one was the Jews poisoning the Nile..

EffinF, you should move to Cairo. You'd fit in quite well with a certain segment of their society.

>> In cultures where the victims decide and do mete out punishment in a blood-for-blood setting, there is little hesitation.

Gee let me guess which culture would that be? Middle Eastern culture? Eye for an eye. Tooth for a tooth? I'm shocked, shocked that the man who revels in insulting 'Islamoids' secretly envies their culture!

>> But don't think for a moment that soldiers don't attack WANTING to kill the enemy to save their asses, their comrades, and people back home. And kill not exactly with indifference - but with fear, exhultation, and cool detachment to the enemy target taken out.

Fear, exultation, and cool detachment? That only happens in Hollywood movies. Sure sign of a wannabe warrior who's never been shot at, who's never spent a night in a ditch, who's never even left the farm!

>> And reconsider your Internet ID as a "Vet" to something more in line with your "love thine enemy, turn the other cheek" pacifist philosophy.

That ain't no pacifist philosophy mate. It's the command of whom two billion people on this planet consider the Son of God.

>> It's a Lefty legalistic dodge. No nation has formally declared war in over 60 years, since the UN CHarter emplaced treaties, signed, ending the practice of diplomatically formally declaring war. The last such was the Soviets declaring war on Japan in 1945. But then some fixate on archaic language in the US Constitution predating the UN that says Congress must declare war ..

>> Never could imagine a righty declaring the US constitution archaic to be replaced by the more modern UN charter! Why do righties hate America so?

>> It's a Lefty legalistic dodge. No nation has formally declared war in over 60 years, since the UN CHarter emplaced treaties, signed, ending the practice of diplomatically formally declaring war. The last such was the Soviets declaring war on Japan in 1945. But then some fixate on archaic language in the US Constitution predating the UN that says Congress must declare war ..

Never could imagine a righty declaring the US constitution archaic to be replaced by the more modern UN charter! Why do righties hate America so?

Chris Ford, your an Archie Bunker.

Will,

A few months ago you debated the point to me of how good the economy is under Bush and I repied "statistics don't lie, but liers use statistics". Now your debating what the other side of the issue? Why the flopflop?

As for my Ford remark, I want to remind you this is a blog debate, not Jeopardy. A little more freedom in blogs to reflect the true feelings of the public. Love it or take a hike.

I'm not okay with justifying not needing to be effective...

stupidity, using a gun is stupidity....

having an attitude that doesn't examine that is driven by a _mindset_

is useless.

a surgeon, is an instrument of removal, but not to serve the purpose of acting out his anger....

I abhor really stupid people that act out, I don't have a problem with surgery.

arrest and surgically remove...cheyney, rumsfeld, the bush extended family and all appointees from this administration....imprision and liquidate their estates.......

now, tonight.

.

he is nothing.

unimportant...

less important than a non-renewable energy source, how many people have died for that this year, last year, during Desert Storm?

less important than outsourcing, how many people have gotten behind on mortgage payments, lost their jobs, had factories close down, alcoholism, spousal abuse...

less important than Darfur

less important than corporate greed, how many have moved into the the service sector, how many fit that advertisement on television that says:

"almost lost his job today but he didn't,

just lost his health benefits, but he has cancer....thank your gawd that with what is still left of his salary that he might be able to make payments on this wonderful insurance plan..."

and no one notice that this is an inappropriate commercial for America...

why is it that no one notices that our quality of life is slipping while we're distracted by

an occupation, labeled a war...

destruction of American lives labeled good business practice: downsizing, outsourcing, no-benefits, no guarantee of a job...

less important than internationalization and downsizing....destroying your country and making some people rich.

do you think the bush family is getting richer faster than you are?

are they in the top 3 % ?

did he pass his family some tax breaks?

oh, maybeeeeeeeeeeeee hhhhhheeeeee, he,

maybe you need your own military force and Director of Intelligent Services....like Negroponte,

motto...."he'll say anything to get paid,"

"just keep paying my bills, need someone silenced, I'll take their pension if they talk about the truth,"

they just passed a law to put that into effect while you were busy being distracted by the "terrorist show"

mous sassi

.

_he_

the sole purported visible example of the one whom your government _says_ perpatrated _something_ or at least talked about it...and who apparently doesn't like you all...

who cares

_he_ might just disappear...get a face change....move to Miami....you'll see a computer generated image...aged and everything...prove otherwise...for the next 20 years...

the restaurant is empty and your host has left the table...

_you_

have to pick up the check.

.

Ah, this blog isn't so bad. You just have to scroll down and ignore the long posts; mainly Chris Fords, Che's, and the writer who does the underscore ( _ ) all the time.

Chris,

NPIC, NIMA, NGA...DIA...maybe Henderson Hall since you have a love of using the term marine...analyst. Imagery analysis is extremely important, but it's not being on the ground and it's not pulling the trigger. Plus, I've worked in some of these places as a contractor, so spare me the melodrama.

Simple fact...if you ENJOY killing human beings, you have a problem. You may enjoy the rush of combat (still have issues), you may enjoy - and never find anywhere else - the comaraderie of serving in battle, you may even enjoy the clearity of the situation...but that is not the same as enjoying killing.

If there is nothing beyond this life - and again, I don't KNOW - then how much greater a poverty is it to have ended the life. And, IF there is a greater reward, a Karmic cycle of rebirth or some other form of afterlife...you will have to answer for your actions - what if it's your victim's God and not yours? What if God, or whatever, really doesn't get the whole...fighting wars for him thing? In this life or after, we must ALL answer for our actions.

Indeed, serving, and more importantly, volunteering to serve, puts you in a position where HAVING to kill is a possibility, but that is different still. Buddhist monks invented the martial arts and yet they are dedicated to pacifism. However, it is clear that there are times, unfortunately, when one must rise to their defense through violent action (it should always be the LAST resort). However, in taking such action, one should not find joy, but profound sadness for not being able to find a different way and for causing suffering even though it could not be helped.

As for you questioning the varacity of my service, I feel no need to justify it with a lengthy response. I will say this, your ideas of what constitutes a warrior and a warrior's emotions and thoughts is woefully inadequate. Again, I suggest you serve first and then cast stones.

Lastly, it would seem you simply cannot respond without personally attacking the person you're responding to. I think that is just sad. Is it because you see everything in black and white, right and wrong? What is it?

Do you even know why you are so angry?

Anyway, I'm sorry you think so little of the destruction of war for some day YOU may be the victim of such violence and the person or people doing it unto you will probably have the same feeling of self-righteousness and anger fueling their actions.

----

On another note, we have released Al Z's bloopers of trying to use a weapon in a video...but did anyone notice he was using a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW)? My question is this: from where did he get it?

Will,

The postrscriptum of your latest posting (favorably) reflects on your ability at self_critisism. Keep it up.

Sorry, Emilio, but your little crack at CF being "too dumb even for the Army" hits a nerve with a few of us. Don't be an ass.

Jamal-

Perhaps you could be more specific about which position I was disputing. The economy is a complicated thing. I am extremely skeptical that I "flip flopped" on anything. There are things about the Bush economy that are deplorable, such as the rising number of people who live beneath the poverty line. The economic disparity between the super wealthy and the super poor is growing and, regardless of how the "economy" is doing, I think this is a bad thing.

However unemployment is low and economic growth is high. These are essentially being funded by irresponsible fiscal policies; lower taxes encourage investment at the cost of losing *much* needed government revenue. Republican Congress, with Bush's no-veto policy, has drastically increased the size of government. He is essentially borrowing money from future generations and pouring it into the economy. The economic growth we are stealing from our children is undemocratic and immoral.

On this point I have been extremely consistent. Again, perhaps you could clarify my "flip flop".

Will, D, come on. You and I all know that the military rarely takes resumes. That is not a judgment, but an observation.

MANY combat arms members, as well as CS and CSS, would probably not score highly on any objective test of intelligence...but that is irrelevant. Most are clever, dedicated, loyal, efficient, athletic and mission oriented. That, combined with an ability to shoot straight, attack a position, and a willingness to serve something larger than themselves, should be enough - and it is for me.

Of course calling soldiers dumb as a generalization is just that, a generalization. But, let's not fool ourselves that we are always the brightest in the bunch.

Come on, you KNOW you're smiling because you're thinking about that "joe" who did that "thing" when you were in.

kljljljlljpp

kljljljlljpp

AfghanVet-

What are you talking about? Neither D. nor I suggested that the armed forces were brilliant. I believe if Emilio wants to spend his time on these blogs exclusively trolling around and insulting individuals, which is about 90% of his posts, he should stick it to the individuals he dislikes and not the hundreds of thousands of dedicated servicemen and women in the United States Army who have done nothing to draw his ire.

Whether or not these people are Einsteins or idiots is, as you said, totally irrelevant. They are as deserving of respect as anyone. I'm not particularly PC so calling Emilio an ass is pretty much the extent to which I care what he thinks about the armed forces. But it's still unnecessary.

Say what you want about Chris Ford for being racist/offensive/combative, but uninformed he is not. And nugatory his posts are not. If you skip past all the naughty words that most of you find offensive there's typically a point and often times it is worth noting.

Emilio's contribution to this thread, and this is characteristic of him, has been 5 posts only two of which have any sort of substance. The other 3 have been one to two sentence snippets assaulting Chris Ford, the army, Denmark, etc. There is no substance. *All* he has are insults.

Being informed is more than the ability to spew out data that in his case is more often than not distorted, incomplete, and incoherent. Data in the hand of close minded, prejudicial people are worse than ignorance, it's garbage. Every dictatorial govt in the last hundred years has a Ministry of Information. Why?

Minister et all-

If what Chris Ford says is "distorted, incomplete, and incoherent" you would do this board and yourselves a service to explain which particular facts he offers that are distorted, incomplete, or incoherent. Calling someone a racist is as effective a barb as calling them a racial expletive. It is meaningless. It speaks to their character, not their argument. A racist asserts 2+2=4 with the same authority as the rest of us.

If Chris Ford is such a transparent and mindless racist than I'm sure none of you will have any trouble dismantling his arguments. Go at it.

We use 30% less oil per capita than we did in 1970..we did the easy stuff...stopped most electric generation from oil burning, lightened cars, put electronic controls on them. Yet we use 35% more oil as a nation than in 1970. Reason? We added 90 million new Americans, most from unchecked immigration, 3rd World village reunification programs, and their attendent spawn..

Posted by: Chris Ford | Apr 26, 2006 3:33:39 PM | Permalink

Let's take a moment and do some calculations based STRICTLY on Mr. Ford numbers and see if they compute.

US population added 90 million since 1970 per Mr. Ford. Current population is around 300 million (298,605,411 today per US census). That gives us a population of 210 million in 1970. Check.

We use 30% less oil per capita today than we did in 1970. But as a nation we use 35% more oil. Also per Mr. Ford.

For the sake of our computations assume we used 100 barrels of oil per capita in 1970. With a 30% drop we each use 70 barrels today. Check.

Our oil consumption as a nation goes up 35% more per Mr. Ford.

Now the calculations:

For 1970:

Total US consumption = 100 X 210 = 21,000 million barrels.

For 2006:

Total US consumption = 70 X 300 = 21,000 million barrels.

Where's the 35% increase due to population growth Mr. Ford?

As usual numbers don't lie so who's fibbing here?

Posted by: Chrisoroid Fordoloid | Apr 26, 2006 7:31:43 PM |

Apples and oranges, pseudo-poster. 40% of oil consumption is private use. The rest is commercial, gov sector. A 30% reduction in per capita private use from a 1970 net of 400 gal per person lowers net oil to 352 gal per person. 400X210 million = 84 billion gallons. Adding 90 million new Juans, Osamas, and Marias + the small part that is native growth gives us 300 million. But while we lowered oil use for power, we had large increases in commercial use of oil for JIT trucking and aviation (and creep due to population driven congestion, sprawl and gridlock cutting into the post 1970 35% savings) so we are up to 376 gal per person. 376X300 million =112.8 billion gallons net. Which, divided by 84 billion = 1.343.

Or, 35% more oil than we used in 1970.

Posted by: Chris Ford | Apr 26, 2006 11:16:27 PM | Permalink

Note nowhere in his first post did he make any distinction as to private vs non-private use. He completely imputed all the rise in oil consumption to immigrants to push his TRANSPARENT anti-immigration agenda. Now if you are anti-immigrant fine, you are entitled to your opinion. Don't use phoney numbers to justify it.

Second even in his rebuttal he still seeked to mislead:

a. 30% off 400 gallons is NOT 352. Maybe simple msicalculation, maybe not. Still misleading.

b. Now take his "376X300 million =112.8 billion gallons net. Which, divided by 84 billion = 1.343.
Or, 35% more oil than we used..." claim. He used the 300 million total population to calculate his 35% increase in oil use. Of that increase only 30% can be attributed to population growth. Even less of that 30% can be from immigrants. But still he implied the whole 35% to immigration.

c. In all this talk about oil consumption he totally ignored the benefits from increased energy usage. The rise in standard of living, the increased output and efficiency, the longer life expectation, etc.

So please if you can't see thru the TRANSPARENT misuse of numbers, you are easily duped or in denial.

Minister-

I see the inescapable point he is trying to make which is: Conservation doesn't make a world of difference if population growth is unchecked. Open borders will necessarily lead to unchecked population growth. All the conservation in the world won't change the fact that we consumed less per capita in 2000 than we did in 1970 yet overall use has steadily increased.

Chris emphasizes too much on the immigration issue perhaps, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should ignore it completely. It isn't difficult to connect the dots on the global scale. Why is it that among Western nations the only ones that have seen their overall oil consumption decrease also happen to be the ones with low population growth rates (which are to a large degree a function of immigration) -- Japan, UK, Germany, etc.

It's an important point.

As for the non stop vitriolic rant against Moussaoui and our jury system, it is typical of a rightwing's limited worldview.

Moussaoui is from all published reports a nut and a nobody. The guy was tried in a court of law by private US citizens who deemed him a bit player provocateur. To insist on making him an example for the death sentence after the jury has rendered its verdict is stupid and shorsighted. We should instead celebrate it as the strength of our system. Instead of giving him his martyrdom, we have shown the rest of the Muslim world what kind of a society he have where private citizens and not some secret military tribunal, not some appointed judges, not even the big bad Bush govt, have the final say in our system of law.

PRIVATE American citizens have decided the proper sentence for a foreign Muslim criminal based on their interpretations of the laws and the facts. Not based on Moussaoui's wish, not the govt prosecutor's wish, not some primodial desire for revenge....

The Muslim world take note! So should rightwingers here at home.

Japan from just yesterday press has an aging workforce problem. So will Germany....

The immigration argument is inherently weak and contradicts the bigger claim that oil consumption is now a GLOBAL issue, i.e. if we don't consume it here they will just consume it there. A claim which CF did make repeatedly.

You really think the Muslim world gives a damn? I mean really? We bend over backwards to show how "tolerant" we are, how "understanding", etc., etc. They torch embassy's and kill people over friggin' cartoons.

Please, call me a rightwinger but I've pretty much given up on Islam as a religion that can be reasoned with.

Personally, have no problem with old Zacky getting life, not a big proponent of the death penalty but I don't think any of this will make a damn bit of difference to the muslim mind.

Minister-

There's room to wiggle on determining Moussaois status. Is he a criminal or is he a spy/combatant/agent for an enemy power? Because civilian law only applies to the former.

I think he's an enemy soldier, akin to a Nazi soldier in World War 2 but worse still because he has unlawfully infiltrated our country and conspired to damage us from the inside. If you think the United States should treat its enemies with the respect they deserve then we should respect that this man was a foreign agent and should be treated accordingly; by military law.

We have sent a message to the Islamic world, but it won't be interpreted as compassion. It'll be interpreted as weakness.

Collection agencies shouldn't be exempt from t