Comments Posted By Steve
Displaying 111 To 120 Of 177 Comments
IF 9/11 WAS SIMPLY SEPTEMBER 11
Alternate history of 9/11!
Nothing more than intellectual masturbation. Or, as they say in the newspaper business, "filler". A profoundly "unserious" idea. But, I'll bet it sounded good in the editorial meeting.
Alternate history is no good without perspective. And, not surprisingly, a knowledge of the future, ie the past. One of the best alternate histories I ever read started with Lincoln's refusal to make war on the Confederacy. The story took place in the 1960s. The plot of the book revolved around an attempt by the US to liquidate the Confederate president.
As you can imagine, 100 years of history gives the author a lot of material to work with. War, technology, political trends, fire, flood, pestilence and sexual mores.
The fatal flaw in this weak Times' series is that most authors do not have the imagination to do anything other than extrapolate the world of 9/10 into the present. Add in that any politician or influencer (Rev. Al? Let's be serious!) has a vested interest in "re-writing" history to reflect his own wishes and you get an espisode of Seinfeld.
Tom Wolfe's essay was good. Everything would be the same, only different.
Comment Posted By Steve On 16.08.2006 @ 08:00
Facts on the ground are stubborn things.
Which side would you rather bet on? The side that looks to be grinding out a victory? Or the side being lauded for standing and fighting unsucessfully?
The IDF might be guilty of insufficient vigor. Presuming that one can peer into the councils of war and "know" what the actual campaign plan is supposed to be. But the facts on the ground are pretty clear that the IDF has adapted to circumstances and continues to pursue its objectives. Limited thought those objectives might be.
I don't have a good read on the tactics or strategic goals of Hezbollah. But a review of the action on the ground and casualty lists points to defeat in some form.
One lesson we Americans have internalized from our Vietnam experience is the vulnerability of US public opinion to enemy propaganda. COL Harry S. Summers analysis of "we were never defeated on the battlefield, but in the streets of the US" is an accurate summary as far as it goes. But like all one sentence conclusions, it's nothing more than a handy axiom or rule of thumb. Summers was largely right, but all he did was re-discover Clauswitz. That there is more to warfare than just the clash of armies. There are whole political and social dimensions that must be considered. But the importance of those other dimensions is not consistent throughout history.
War in popular democracies is certainly more difficult to sustain over time. Free citizens are not above questioning the value of a continued investment of national treasure and manhood in a cause. Free citizens are impatient for results. Remember, their business is business not warfare.
Tyrannies are much easier to manage during war. Tyrannies have the power to harness the entire energy of a nation. The media exist at the sufferance of the state and must go along to get along. Citizens do not have the incentive or liberty to challenge and question the official policy.
I think the west, the transnational elites, the Arab world and the terrorists are deluding themselves that propaganda (ie the information war) is the trump card. Most of these "really smart people" don't have an appreciation for how much Israel's strategic position has changed over the past 20 years.
1. Israel is already considered by many to be at least an inconvenient fact on the ground. They are not going to go peacefully into the night.
2. Israel is far less dependent on the US and the west in general for weapons and supplies. Out of necessity, Israel has developed a large and advanced arms industry.
3. Israel trades with many nations. And nations, particularly in Europe might talk tough, but business is after all, business. There is little appetite among the Europeans to cut off their noses to spite Israel.
4. The UN is a toothless tiger. There are no UN divisions. There are no excess funds for peace keeping. Any military force must come from the west. To be more precise, any military force must come from the few western nations that can afford to deploy and support a well trained and equipped professional army for an extended period of time. Name one nation besides Britain and France that has the capability, not to mention the will.
5. Everyone wants to go to heaven. Nobody wants to die.
In this case literally. "The world" wants peace, but there are no nations that want to do the actual hard work of disarming Hezbollah. They want to wish the problem away by passing resolutions.In summary, what does Israel have to lose by vigorously purusing its campaign plan? Will they be hated less if they halt and accept a cease fire? Will Iran suddenly recognize the right of Israel to exist? Will they be embraced by the the world community? Will Hezbollah disarm in the spirit of the brotherhood of man?
Lastly, Hezbollah owes us a debt of honor for the bombing of the Marine barracks. I take some small pleasure in seeing them paid back in their own coin. Now if we can just figure out a way to balance the books with Iran....
Comment Posted By Steve On 6.08.2006 @ 08:43
The real IDF plan certainly has just been put into play. Hizbullah has no chance against the IDF when they hatch the real offensive and what better place to do so than Baalbek? I'm shocked by those who were buying the Hizbullah holding it's own against the IDF coverage we have seen over the past several days...............
Comment Posted By steve On 1.08.2006 @ 20:50
THE CITY OF BIG SHOULDERS AND TINY BRAINS
Svenghouli,
You're confusing me a little with your posts. First you say that you understand economics, and then you say there should be an increase in the minimum wage.
Why should the government dictate the minimum wage? If there is not a labor supply for a job, an employer will have to raise wages to attract workers. If there is a surplus of labor, why should the employer still have to deal with an artifical floor? A minimum wage increase will have one of two effects. It could cause inflation because of the artifically higher labor costs, or it will decrease the number of jobs available to low skill and no skill workers (As you pointed out about the drive-through operated remotely from India). If the latter happens, people with no income will have MUCH lower buying power than people who are making the current minimum wage. If the former happens, there is no net change in buying power for the minimum wage people.
What is happening in Congress is that the Republicans have made a poison pill for BOTH sides. The Republicans have to choke down an increase in the minimum wage while the Democrats have to accept a decrease in the death tax penalty. I wonder if that is the future of "bipartisanship" to craft legislation that has elements that both sides of the aisle like and despise at the same time.
Comment Posted By Steve On 29.07.2006 @ 07:42
Svenghouli,
If no one will take the jobs at the wages that Wal-Mart offers, that is Wal-Mart's problem. They have a choice at that point: raise wages or see suffering sales. If other companies have higher paying jobs that require the same level competence, Wal-Mart will have to compete. This happens.
Looking at how this law is structured is also very troublesome. It only applies to big retailers. If you prevent the big retailers from moving in by making the climate unfavorable, people have to go to smaller stores that are not chained to the idiotic law. These smaller stores could easily have poorer benefits than the big box retailer, and they will not be able to match the efficiencies of scale that the big boxes utilize. The latter just increases the costs to consumers. These are the same consumers are the people affected by the council's law, and they lack buying power. So the council is hurting the very people they pretend to protect.
Comment Posted By Steve On 28.07.2006 @ 17:26
I posit that we cannot understand the actions of the aldermen because most of the readers/commentors on this site are conservative or libertarian leaning. The philosophy behind the Chicago City Council is the same nanny-state philosophy of big goverment and union hiring businesses that people need someone to take care of them.
Too often when people try to "violate" economic laws (i.e.: try to disrupt the nature of supply and demand), the results are very messy. The airline industry is a prime example of this. For quite some time, it was run under conditions that were somewhat socialistic. The FAA regulated fares. The workers (pilots, flight attendants, mechanics, etc.) were represented by unions who claimed their "fair share" including pension plans that would take care of the workers for life. However, when deregulation happened, the industry fell apart. Customers shopped for fares, following the principles of supply and demand. The airlines couldn't control their labor costs to balance out the changes in revenue. As a result, the nanny-state government has to pick up big pension costs that the nanny-state bankrupt airlines promised. A similar example can be seen in the automotive industry as well. I suppose a lot of people ignored the moral of the fable of the ant and the grasshopper.
Having survived the purgatory of retail management, I learned a lot about the economics of the industry that apparantly Alderman Moore does not understand. A public company such as Wal-Mart owes a responsibility to its shareholders to build worth. While expansion is an idicator analysts use to measure the value of a retailer, it is accompanied by net profits and same store sales. If the stores in Chicago have to charge more to make up for higher wages, sales growth will be flat. The other alternative is to use lighter staffing in those stores to reduce labor cost. Moving into such markets will be the last course of action for Wal-Mart. I would expect them to expand into other ventures than to move into locations that don't help shareholder value.
In the real world, as other commentors have stated, Wal-Mart and other big box retailers do not even start people out at minimum wage. The better managers in these stores are always looking for the sharpest of their workers and promote them. Having sharp people working for When people prove themselves worthy, they get paid more. Someone who is willing to take on the responsibilities of head cashier earn more than someone content just to work the register.
Of course, I'm curious about who defines a living wage. Who decides what is absolutely necessary for survival?
The bottom line is that I don't believe these people hate big business. They are so wrapped up in their paternal philosophy of big goverment/big business taking care of workers for life that they cannot comprehend why a business believes in self-reliance of the workers.
Comment Posted By Steve On 28.07.2006 @ 08:59
ENJOYING THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM TO BE AN IDIOT
Yep, Jane Doe is a recognized expert in her field. I had lunch with Jane last week. Wait! That's a name frequently used by people who wish to conceal their identity.
ASCE is NOT a government organization. Your premise is faulty. Your sources are flaky. You like to quote out of context.
Now go away before I give your name and IP address to the trilateral commission. (That's a joke. In that way, it's a lot like you.)
Comment Posted By Steve On 15.07.2006 @ 15:05
Anonymous websites to support conspiracy theories? Please come back with credentialed analysis, otherwise don't try. There is no evidence in the website that the person providing the "analysis" knows anything about controlled demolition.
I watched the video link. So? I guess I lack the nuance to see what a conspiracy theorist might think. Again, quotes lacking context.
Your arguments continue to grasp at straws while you FAIL to address the lack of CREDENTIALED AND VERIFIABLE proof in sufficient context to make a coherent arguement. Throwing a bunch of crap against a wall to see what sticks is pathetic. You may return to your bunker.
Comment Posted By Steve On 15.07.2006 @ 10:01
John,
As for your comment #26, what is your point? It was an exercise. Defense organizations, civil authorities (police, fire, etc.), and even private industries (nuclear and petrochemical for instance) come up with exercise scenarios. Does every scenario developed mean that it's fodder for evil people in the government to turn into an attack? If you truly believe that, PLEASE get some psychiatric help for your paranoia.
As for your comment #24, please post the source so it can be reviewed for authenticity and context. There is no use in addressing a random quote. Is it easier for a conspiracy theorist to hang on a random quote than a pleathora of facts?
By the way...BOO! I hope that didn't scare you too much.
Comment Posted By Steve On 14.07.2006 @ 07:04
John Hyatt,
I don't lend much credence to conspiracy theorists because they depend far more upon their imagination than on science.
While I do not claim to be credentialed in Civil Engineering or Materials Engineering, I have learned quite a bit over the years.
I read the ASCE report with great interest, too. I assure you that it is only a brief report of all the analysis that followed the terrorist attack.
Let's look at some things logically. (Rick - I hope I'm not feeding the trolls.)
1. The buildings were subjected to greater stresses than they could handle. The loading on the columns had shifted drastically from the original design. The core columns that were designed to take the load from the outer supports were damaged by fire and aircraft parts. The fire was also causing expansion of components within the towers. Since there are different materials involved, they don't expand equally, changing the loading further.2. The south tower collapsed first. Even though it was hit about an hour later than the north tower, this does make sense. It was damaged at a lower point than the north tower, therefore, there was more weight/stress above the damage. Coupled with details from paragraph 1, the south tower reached a failure point before the north tower.
3. The collapse of WTC 7 was the indirect result of the attacks. The building was assaulted by debris from the other towers, the shock waves of the crashing towers, and the overpressure of the air displaced by the rapid pancaking of the twin towers. Furthermore, WTC 7 was on fire, and no one was making any effort to put out the fires. It was severely weakened and destined to fail.
4. Controlled demolition is not a simple process. If you have ever seen the documentaries on the preparation it takes for a controlled demolition, you would see that they drill into some columns and take out others to get the desired effect. It requires a suspension of my disbelief to think that a group could do the prep work for the demolition and not be noticed.
5. Covering up the controlled demolition with aircraft crashes would require even more suspension of disbelief. One has to believe that a plane was flown into just the right floor above the charges and not have the fire or debris affect the charges or the wiring. The 767-200 is a fairly large aircraft, and for purposes of control theory, it can be considered a stable platform. It is not easy to exert quick changes in direction. This is in essense a lack of control. The plane is going to go where you point it. If you look at the ASCE report in chapter 2 (http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf), you will see that the second plane impacted at an angle that indicates the pilot was banking the plane to attempt to strike the tower in the center. He was off-center, and he couldn't make the course correction fast enough because the plane wouldn't allow it. So in the controlled demolition scenario, the plane would have to barely miss the floor where the charges were placed. (Or do the conspiracy theorists believe charges were placed on many floors?) A little off, and the cover story is blown. The plans fail.
6. For the conspiracy theories to work, two more unlikely things would have to happen. EVERY member of the cover-up would have to keep quiet, and no reporter could investigate the story hard enough to uncover the holes. The federal government leaks like a sieve. How many stories of lesser magnitude have come out using anonymous sources in the Pentagon, State Department, CIA, etc.? How many reporters out there would like to break the story that would make Watergate seem as offensive as a parking ticket? Do you think the New York Times would sit on that story? Again, it requires the willing suspension of my disbelief.
We underestimated our enemy. I know I laughed when I heard the FBI caught one of the conspirators of the 1993 WTC bombing when he went to reclaim his deposit on the truck he rented to hold the bomb. The 9/11 attacks were the result of a sophisticated plan. Some speculate that carrying out the attack depleted some of the brain trust of our enemy. After all, how many first team terrorists killed themselves in the attack and were targeted shortly afterward? I can only hope that the FBI, CIA, DHS, etc., won't underestimate the enemy again.
So, do I think there is a shred of truth to the conspiracy theorists? No.
Comment Posted By Steve On 13.07.2006 @ 06:55
