Steve Schacher

Are you living in the world of the possible, no matter how remote, or the world of the probable, based on past evidence and likelihood?

Plus the fact that the "Bush lied" hysteria began with Joe Wilson's claim that the "16 words" in the State of the Union address were a lie (the part about the British claiming that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, aka the Niger Yellowcake affair), which is now being debunked. Wilson is in hiding, and the Senate Democrats are in CYA mode, because they now know the truth that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

Plus the fact that the "Bush lied" hysteria began with Joe Wilson's claim that the "16 words" in the State of the Union address were a lie (the part about the British claiming that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, aka the Niger Yellowcake affair), which is now being debunked. Wilson is in hiding, and the Senate Democrats are in CYA mode, because they now know the truth that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger.

It was just one oddity. The whole story caught my attention. The way it read, it sounded like the guys didn't know each other when at the gate, but then knew each other once on board. It seemed too coincidental that, out of everyone on the plane, they appeared to get up as a group to go to the bathroom. They appeared to be waiting at all the strategic locations. They appeared to be giving each other signals. Yes, there also appeared to be some instances of coincidentally innocent activity -- several time I've sat next to passengers who were reading passages from the Bible during takeoff and landing. However, having been in many airplane bathrooms, it is inconceivable to me that someone would choose to eat there over eating at their seat. One could argue the converse -- that if they were Islamic extremists, that they would be Kosher and therefore would not eat McDonalds at all, let alone in an unclean place like an airplane bathroom. In a story like this, it is easy to pick out each single instance and explain it away. It is the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" -- how a series of oddities add up to something else, or don't; how a series of oddities can defy statistics (what are the odds that the same group of men are involved in oddity after oddity after oddity). What is the Freudian joke, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?

It was just one oddity. The whole story caught my attention. The way it read, it sounded like the guys didn't know each other when at the gate, but then knew each other once on board. It seemed too coincidental that, out of everyone on the plane, they appeared to get up as a group to go to the bathroom. They appeared to be waiting at all the strategic locations. They appeared to be giving each other signals. Yes, there also appeared to be some instances of coincidentally innocent activity -- several time I've sat next to passengers who were reading passages from the Bible during takeoff and landing. However, having been in many airplane bathrooms, it is inconceivable to me that someone would choose to eat there over eating at their seat. One could argue the converse -- that if they were Islamic extremists, that they would be Kosher and therefore would not eat McDonalds at all, let alone in an unclean place like an airplane bathroom. In a story like this, it is easy to pick out each single instance and explain it away. It is the "whole is greater than the sum of its parts" -- how a series of oddities add up to something else, or don't; how a series of oddities can defy statistics (what are the odds that the same group of men are involved in oddity after oddity after oddity). What is the Freudian joke, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar?

I'm not forgetting. It isn't as polar as you suggest. There are the Baathist loyalists in the Sunni Triangle, but there are also the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North. The Kurds have been protected by the No-Fly Zone, so they've been allowed to establish themselves, much to the chagrin of Turkey, who would probably sweep into Iraq and take out the Kurds if they were allowed to do so. The Shiites were also protected, but had a harder time of it with the drying of the marshes (with yet another indigenous group), although they had the port city Basra in their control. The current Iraq was the result of borders determined by the British many years ago. It would probably have developed into three separate countries if allowed to go on its own: a Kurdistan (?), a Sunnistan (?), and a Shiastan (?). Then, they would all have started wars amongst themselves, with an occasional stray missile hitting Iranistan.

I'm not forgetting. It isn't as polar as you suggest. There are the Baathist loyalists in the Sunni Triangle, but there are also the Shiites in the South and the Kurds in the North. The Kurds have been protected by the No-Fly Zone, so they've been allowed to establish themselves, much to the chagrin of Turkey, who would probably sweep into Iraq and take out the Kurds if they were allowed to do so. The Shiites were also protected, but had a harder time of it with the drying of the marshes (with yet another indigenous group), although they had the port city Basra in their control. The current Iraq was the result of borders determined by the British many years ago. It would probably have developed into three separate countries if allowed to go on its own: a Kurdistan (?), a Sunnistan (?), and a Shiastan (?). Then, they would all have started wars amongst themselves, with an occasional stray missile hitting Iranistan.

I think the early expectation was to crush the Iraqi military in a prolonged battle at Baghdad. What actually happened was that the Republican Guard melted into the population instead of standing and fighting, which is why we had such an easy time of taking Baghdad. Then, the Iraqi Guard reformed as a guerrilla opposition. At that point, Al Qaeda, Syrian, and Iranian terrorist groups joined them in the force that we see today. As they say, all plans go out the window as soon as the enemy is engaged. I think that the real mistake was in letting Fallujah stand unopposed. That gave the insurgency a home base from which to operate. We probably left it alone for PC reasons, which shouldn't be a factor in warfare, but we wanted to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi by using the "shock and awe" tactic of simultaneous pinpoint bombing of military installations while leaving the civilian infrastructure intact. The net effect of that was to not leave the Iraqis with the impression that they were defeated, the way that carpet-bombing of cities like Dresden in WWII made the Germans absolutely aware that they were beaten. If we had bombed Baghdad and disrupted the power, water, electricity, etc., then the people would have been more focused on restoring their infrastructure than looting from each other, and we would have been able to use the rebuilding of their power grid and water supply as a make-work project to get the people involved in their reconstruction earlier than we did. As it was, the Iraqi people sat back and let the Americans and British do all the heavy lifting, staying disengaged for far too long for their own good. Their power grid was already a mess because Hussein was using it as a weapon against his enemies and a reward for his friends. The same with water, where he dried up the marshes to eliminate his southern foes. We probably should have just destroyed it all in the beginning and then spent the entire time rebuilding it from the ground up.

I think the early expectation was to crush the Iraqi military in a prolonged battle at Baghdad. What actually happened was that the Republican Guard melted into the population instead of standing and fighting, which is why we had such an easy time of taking Baghdad. Then, the Iraqi Guard reformed as a guerrilla opposition. At that point, Al Qaeda, Syrian, and Iranian terrorist groups joined them in the force that we see today. As they say, all plans go out the window as soon as the enemy is engaged. I think that the real mistake was in letting Fallujah stand unopposed. That gave the insurgency a home base from which to operate. We probably left it alone for PC reasons, which shouldn't be a factor in warfare, but we wanted to win the "hearts and minds" of the Iraqi by using the "shock and awe" tactic of simultaneous pinpoint bombing of military installations while leaving the civilian infrastructure intact. The net effect of that was to not leave the Iraqis with the impression that they were defeated, the way that carpet-bombing of cities like Dresden in WWII made the Germans absolutely aware that they were beaten. If we had bombed Baghdad and disrupted the power, water, electricity, etc., then the people would have been more focused on restoring their infrastructure than looting from each other, and we would have been able to use the rebuilding of their power grid and water supply as a make-work project to get the people involved in their reconstruction earlier than we did. As it was, the Iraqi people sat back and let the Americans and British do all the heavy lifting, staying disengaged for far too long for their own good. Their power grid was already a mess because Hussein was using it as a weapon against his enemies and a reward for his friends. The same with water, where he dried up the marshes to eliminate his southern foes. We probably should have just destroyed it all in the beginning and then spent the entire time rebuilding it from the ground up.

That's the debate, all right. In the article, it wasn't just the woman, it was also the flight attendants, other passengers, and the pilots. And you have to admit, there were other oddities besides the men all getting up together. How many people bring their McDonalds lunch to eat in the airplane bathroom rather than at their seat? Everyone knows about not using radios and cell phones on the plane -- they make an announcement throughout each flight. Why did one of the men take his cell phone to the bathroom, if not to make an illicit phone call? Who takes a camera to the bathroom? The flight was four hours long. All of these men had aching butts? According to the article, they are musicians -- I'd expect them to be used to sitting for long periods of time. Anyway, as I said, was it a panic attack or a dry run? With Homeland Security asking people to be observant and vigilant, was this the kind of activity that should have been questioned? There was lots of unusual activity, at the very least. And, one point to consider, if you can train a bunch of people to fly planes into buildings, you can train them to play musical instruments.

That's the debate, all right. In the article, it wasn't just the woman, it was also the flight attendants, other passengers, and the pilots. And you have to admit, there were other oddities besides the men all getting up together. How many people bring their McDonalds lunch to eat in the airplane bathroom rather than at their seat? Everyone knows about not using radios and cell phones on the plane -- they make an announcement throughout each flight. Why did one of the men take his cell phone to the bathroom, if not to make an illicit phone call? Who takes a camera to the bathroom? The flight was four hours long. All of these men had aching butts? According to the article, they are musicians -- I'd expect them to be used to sitting for long periods of time. Anyway, as I said, was it a panic attack or a dry run? With Homeland Security asking people to be observant and vigilant, was this the kind of activity that should have been questioned? There was lots of unusual activity, at the very least. And, one point to consider, if you can train a bunch of people to fly planes into buildings, you can train them to play musical instruments.

quote:Portland, OR resident Suzanne Marshal compared herself to an addict, needing increasingly large doses of perceived injustices to achieve a state of anger.Too funny!

quote:Bill Huffman has been banned from yet another forum.Is HE still around? He's like the original detractor from the Take2/BC3Kv1.0 days. I'd have thought that he'd find a girlfriend an move on to other things by now.

It's the classic legal purist argument, "It's better that 100 criminals go free than for one innocent man to be convicted."

It's the classic legal purist argument, "It's better that 100 criminals go free than for one innocent man to be convicted."

Aren't they working on a Fantastic Four movie? What about Iron Man?

What you said is absolutely true. However, there are also some pretty weird things in the story. How many people on airplanes would rather eat their McDonalds lunch in the bathroom instead of at their seat?

What you said is absolutely true. However, there are also some pretty weird things in the story. How many people on airplanes would rather eat their McDonalds lunch in the bathroom instead of at their seat?

Scary article. What do you think, panic attack or dry run? http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/articl...1&articleid=711

Scary article. What do you think, panic attack or dry run? http://www.womenswallstreet.com/WWS/articl...1&articleid=711

One point on bias: First, one has to separate opinion pieces from news pieces. It is expected that opinion pieces come from the known point-of-view of the author; this is not bias. Bias comes into play when a piece is being presented as neutral when it actually slants one way or the other. The point of the previously posted column was to show some of the media tricks to bias their reports, such as the cloak of authority by citing "scientists" without identifying them or showing their credentials. Other types of bias include only citing experts from one end of the spectrum but not the other, by omitting relevant facts from a story that break the other way, and by excerpting and highlighting comments out of context (in bold boxes) to leave the reader with a false impression. Comments that we post are not biased because our positions are known. Our comments are our own judgements.

The server is being hit very hard due to the popularity of the parody. It hits both ways, but some say that it hits harder on Kerry than on Bush.

The server is being hit very hard due to the popularity of the parody. It hits both ways, but some say that it hits harder on Kerry than on Bush.

quote:How's THAT...Cute. Care to decompose it to point out the bias the way that the author points out the bias in the articles that he cites?

Post your observations here so we can all see them.