Lobowolf

The Mets.

I don't put much stock in political soundbites in general, either the claim that it worked, or the backing off of the original claim. I think that most people would view the fortunate outcome more as being in spite of the system than because of it (and I think they'd be right). Regardless, it was a good outcome and hopefully a good learning experience.

I saw someone state on CNN yesterday that his British Visa was revoked for some reason totally unrelated to the threat of terrorism and that it was just a coincidence. I can't remember what the reason was or who said it. Also I remember hearing he tried to detonate the bomb in his seat because it was directly over the wing and the bathroom wasn't. Again I can't really verify that, or in the case of that claim maybe no one can. “He was refused entry on grounds that he was applying to study at an educational establishment that we didn’t consider to be genuine,” a Whitehall official said.

For your king-dropping analogy to be correct, a drunk passenger would have had to have been jostled by turbulence just at the right moment and drop his Jim Beam onto the just lit fuse of the bomb, putting it out. It may not be much, but there was a reason this plot failed. It wasn't simply blind luck. I don't know if you got a chance to read the link I posted from Cato, but I thought the author made several excellent points concerning our "system" of security. First, he made it clear that there is no single "system" - the system itself is made of layer upon layer. The last layer is public awareness and participation, and it appears this final layer worked well enough for other passengers to subdue al-Skivvies Haut "N Crotch. So in this sense the system did work - al-Skivvies burned off his dick, and the plane landed safely - but it did not work particularly well or even as well as we should expect. Maybe it was table feel. Yeah, the bridge analogy was a bad one. Maybe it's more like bidding a slam that worked because a finesse was on and a side-suit split 3-3. Great that worked, but it's hardly a system victory.

Britain's system worked, anyway - he was prohibited from returning to the UK by its Border Agency. That he obtained and retained a Visa is a sign that our "system" didn't work. It was nice of him not to go to the bathroom and rip it out of his underwear. The device (apparently) COULD have worked, but sometimes you get lucky. *** The revelation of Abdulmutallab's background has confounded terror experts. Dr Magnus Ranstorp of the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defence College said that the attempted bombing "didn't square". "On the one hand, it seems he's been on the terror watch list but not on the no-fly list," he said. "That doesn't square because the American Department for Homeland Security has pretty stringent data-mining capability. I don't understand how he had a valid visa if he was known on the terror watch list. "Why didn't he go to the toilets to detonate the bomb? Why would he try to set it off 20 minutes before he's going to land? It could probably have been successful had the person not been amateurish. I think this is a sign that it's much more difficult now for al-Qa'ida to pull off something serious." Chaim Koppel, a security consultant, added: "I think the explosive was supposed to go bang rather than just start a fire. The terrorists probably didn't mix it well enough. Maybe they didn't do enough practice runs, but the more the guy is trained, the more exposed he is to MI5, MI6, the FBI and other security agencies, so he probably didn't receive enough training." *** Sometimes you get lucky, though. But when you drop a singleton king for no apparent reason in an 8-card fit, you shouldn't take too much credit when it works. When a guy on a terror watch list, whose own father reported his concerns, gets to keep his Visa and get on an inbound flight with incendiary devices, the fact that the plane stayed in the air isn't enough to support a statement like "the system worked" - a position even Janet Napolitano has backed away from.

Agree on both counts...2 great ones.

Don't like that list, a whole additional top 5 best picture nominees could have been: And how about some more reasonable picks: THe Insider was nominated for the 2000 award, along with Cider House Rules, The Green Mile, American Beauty, and The Sixth Sense. That's a strong group. No real quarrel with American Beauty (other than the ending, which I could have vastly improved). The real crime that year, though, was Michael Caine (sorry Michael) over Hayley Joel Osmont for Best Supporting Actor.

I'd take Good Will Hunting from that list, but agreed...stong year.

Strongly concur. Great book, and it held up to be a great movie.

I can relate to that. I get rather amused every time I hear taxation characterized as something other than "the government taking money." And money is also spent on a host of things that many (and often most) of us don't support, let alone demand. But, of course, the discussion isn't whether the government can or should tax people to provides services; it's how much money it should take, and from whom, and in what context. Surely, it would specious to reply to complaints about, say a 99% income tax by saying, "Well, gee, don't you want roads without potholes and clean water?" Whether or not to pay "attention," implies that there was something to pay attention to, e.g. an internet post in a forum read by reasonably intelligent people, or a statement made in the presence of others, i.e. participation in the ongoing political debate. I would construe such commentary as "being politically active," along with, for instance, voting. It was also usually acquired by someone who's already paid income taxes on it, and if a corporation was involved, corporate taxes were paid prior to that, and depending on the corporation, sales taxes were paid along the way, too. As someone else pointed out, the money could have been saved by someone who lived frugally in order to provide for his/her children. Or someone who wisely chose not to have children he/she couldn't afford. It could have been saved to pay for his/her children's college (subject to a gift tax exemption, btw). Take 2 next-door neighbors in equal financial positions. They're both permitted to pretty much pass their money along as they see fit (including to charity, btw, not just their lazy children). They have people and causes they care about, and money that they've managed not to lose, waste, or spend. Then one day, a drunk driver kills one of them. Now the government says, "Well, the other guy can choose the disposition of his money, but we'll now take half of the first guy's money." As a society, we recognize a right to disposition of assets after death, or we'd just have 100% reversion to the state, not wills and testaments; so a huge cut based on death seems random and extreme. No, I'd rather there were less government spending. In addition to clean water and fire departments (i.e. the things we pretty much all agree on), there are all sorts of other things that are the subject of rational debate, whether it's "free" health care, wars in the Middle East, studies about the mating habits of dung beetles, public tuition (and college residency discounts) to people in the country illegally, abstinence programs, and more. Regardless of the specifics (everyone has his/her own favorites and the ones that he/she finds highly objectionable), I'd take the position that if we can't pay for everything without taking half of the assets of everyone who kicks off, then the discussion should center around which of those goods and services are actually necessary. Analogistically, I'd like a Ferrari. Maybe not as much as clean water, but I'd like one. A lot. I could steal from people and get a Ferrari, but I don't think that's an appropriate way to obtain money. I limit my income to what I consider appropriate means of acquisition, and as a necessary consequence (since *I* can't borrow trillions of dollars), I limit the things I spend money on, accordingly. Similarly, I think a massive estate tax is an inappropriate means of obtaining money to run "the government." And yes, I do know that "the government" is comprised of people just like you and me.

Just got back from Sherlock Holmes. The girlfriend and I both liked it a lot. Good role for Downey.

Blind Side was a good book, too. As I've come to expect from Michael Lewis.

I have to see "Up in the Air" just for having Iggy Pop's "The Passenger" in the soundtrack. That song never gets old to me.

You can do what you want with your money while you're alive, including giving to people whom you care about. Why on earth should the government be entitled to it, or a huge chunk of it, just because you died? Keep in mind if you gift money, a gift tax must be paid. So the govt is entitled to its cut even if you are alive. :P Estate taxes are just a form of the gift tax. Of course you paid taxes if earned income and you pay taxes when you spend it also. Of course there may be a few other taxes along the way also. True enough, but (as far as I remember from my Tax Law class), the gift tax is at a smaller rate, and comes with exemptions (amount, and form of gift, e.g. college tuition) that the estate tax doesn't have. So they're a nasty form of the gift tax.

I'm still trying to work out the "turn of your cell phones" issue. If they're safe, why can't I use it? If they're unsafe, why can we have them?

You can try my son's place "Juan's Flying Burrito" but you will have to take the streetcar on Canal St to Carrollton Ave or "Slice Pizzeria" but this needs a different streetcar St. Charles Ave to Martin Luther King Blvd.(you get on at Carondelet(renamed Bourbon in the French Quarter) and Canal). You could also try Mother's for a po' boy sandwich. They are located at Tchoupitoulas & Poydras IIRC (within walking distance) And when you're at the corner of Tchoupitoulas & Poydras, you're in easy walking distance of Harrah's, which has good blackjack tables. And a sandwich shop.

Clearly.

You can do what you want with your money while you're alive, including giving to people whom you care about. Why on earth should the government be entitled to it, or a huge chunk of it, just because you died?

You should give me another try, too! If you do try another of the movies, I'd suggest Pulp Fiction. I think it has a good mix of the best elements of the other two; it's a nice blend of character, humor, and intensity.

I didn't love or hate Kill Bill, but for Tarantino at his best, it's one of the "Big 3" - Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, or True Romance.

FWIW, apparently in the USA, more people died on 9-11 than by being struck by lightning in the 30 years through 2008 combined (under 60 a year). And a good chunk of the lightning deaths are easily preventable. Here's a good tip to cut down your odds, for instance - don't play golf during a storm.

That's a bit like saying that because banks are robbed so rarely, the armed guards and security cameras are obviously a waste of money.

is it twice more "a little bit" ? ok, maybe twice more is as exaggeration, but "a little bit more" it is too. edit again: it seems that twice more might be quite accurate: a 75000 euros/year will pay 33% income tax a 75000 US/year will pay 20% income tax if you factor in the sales tax, 19% versus 4%-8% you are getting there ... Lol, maybe you should start by comparing similar incomes, instead of comparing a 75k $ salary with a 105k $ salary. I am wondering if you try to be sarcastic, but whatever ... 75,000 Eur != $75,000 US. 75,000 Eur. = $108,000 US (approx. based on exchange rate of 1.438) This is what is meant by.....comparing similar incomes, imo. really? you are earning your money in US and spending them in Germany? anyway, you can multiply the Euros with 1,43 to get the american equivalent, but then everything will cost you almost double in germany. just 2 examples: same VW Jetta TDI : Germany starts at 23000, in US 23000 same VW Tiguan (2.0 TSI) : Germany starts at 28000, US starts at 23000 do the same exercise with clothes, food, gas. Income tax rates increase as a function of income in the US. It has nothing to do with the exchange rate. If you want to compare someone making 75,000 Euros with an American, you have to compare him with an American making over $100,000 a year, and that person is paying a higher percentage of his income to the federal government than an American making $75,000 a year.

Heard about this one on the radio today. Apparently he set the house on fire with a note to his adoptive parents saying, "I'm sorry you have to die." Have no fear, though...the state's fixed him in just months. I think I'd take my chances with the jury on the child abandonment felony charge.

I did Joe Louis...it came up with Joe Frazier the first time, then tried about 1/2-dozen more questions and got it the second time