Howard,
We aren’t getting through to each other. I offer here a very strained analogy as to how this discussion is going and how it has gone in the past.
We are discussing a mutual friend, someone we both care about. The friend brings home a thousand a month and he spends seven hundred a month on car payments. He thinks he needs a Hummer and Chevy and a Lamborghini to keep up appearances at his job. I ask you, “Do you think he needs those cars bad enough to be letting his kids go hungry“. You answer by describing the drive train of each vehicle. Then I say, “But, does he need them?” You respond by saying that they also have keyless entries”.

Posted at January 30, 2008 2:32 PM in response to America Diminished

--

Howard,

Remember the question that you posed and then I asked you to answer yourself, if you could.

“I still would like to hear a reasonable set of roles and missions.” [My emphasis added this time around ]

Almost your entire list entails what we should have, in your opinion, to carry out a mission. It does not address what a reasonable mission would be. An example.

“Provide TBD Brigade Combat Teams to coalition operations, a mix of Heavy, Stryker, and Light TBD. Provide 2 (TBD) corps troops and headquarters organizations.”

The Brigade Combat Teams would play some role in some mission but a Brigade Combat Team is not be a role or a mission. Right now we have brigades of soldiers filling the role of occupiers and their mission is to quell the violence in Iraq so that civil society can function. Is that a reasonable role or a reasonable mission, all things considered?

If we built a military as a completely defensive force to repel any country that might try to attack us militarily and which was not intended to project force as part of our foreign policy in any way that violated the ideas of “Just War”, would it be a reasonable national policy/strategy In order to protect us reasonably well and would it need to be as large and economically crippling as the one we have maintained for years and which all major candidates to be our next President say they will expand. That is where I have tried to lead the conversation with my question which was, and still is; “I still would like to hear a reasonable set of roles and missions”. Can you help us out with that?”.

Posted at January 30, 2008 9:21 AM in response to America Diminished

“I still would like to hear a reasonable set of roles and missions.”

I would too. Could you help out with that. What roles and missions would you recommend to the planning of a new Democratic administration?

Posted at January 29, 2008 2:15 PM in response to America Diminished

Thanks, I passed this on to someone who needs it.
I think the answer is no but can you, or anyone else who might know, tell me if assumeable loans are any longer available and should a buyer shop for one.

Posted at January 24, 2008 9:07 PM in response to California Foreclosures More Than Double Record From Last Downturn

Thanks for the tip. I just finished sweeping my ex-friends floor and he paid me but now that I’m well-off I think I’ll retire and work for politicians who will give tax cuts.

Posted at January 23, 2008 9:40 AM in response to A 'Mild' Recession?!? Sez Who?

I'm teaming up with a friend to save our economy. I will sweep his floor for a million dollars and he will sweep mine for a million. Two million added to GDP right there. Come on folks, you can pitch in too.

Posted at January 23, 2008 8:29 AM in response to A 'Mild' Recession?!? Sez Who?

it's almost like a drunk taking a drink to cure his/her hangover.

 I'll drink to that.

Posted at January 19, 2008 6:08 PM in response to Politics Trumps Economics...And It’s a Good Thing!

If I was ever on trial I wouldn’t want you wrapping up the case for the prosecution, but I think you have it about right.

Posted at January 18, 2008 7:49 PM in response to Sunlight Is The Best Disinfectant

Jack,
Thanks for the link. Here is what I take from it. I hope that there is a shift worker from a casino, or some other person who has the information, who will post here with something better than speculation.
“At-Large Precinct Caucuses will be created working with employers who have
more then 4,000 employees in a contiguous area working on Saturday morning
January 19th 2008“ This from page fifty-three at http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/images/draftdelselupdated_oct2007l.pdf

There may be other employers this large in the state but I doubt it so what I say concerns casinos. I did not find anything one way or another about a requirement to be at the caucus for the full time but I am assuming that that is the requirement. [ I did a fairly quick skim reading] In Iowa the doors were closed at the start and participants needed to stay to the bitter end to be counted. Since the casinos have no intention of closing or curtailing business while the caucuses are going on we can assume they have replacements for the workers who will attend a caucus during the time of their normal shift. My guess is that workers were required to declare if they wanted the time off and then overtime was offered to induce enough people to fill the vacancies. Probably a person scheduled to work at eight o’clock who declared they wanted off to vote would be told to report that day and begin there shift after the caucus was over. That would mean giving up pay to vote. The workers filling in the vacancies are, in affect, offered time and a half pay to not vote. Hardly a perfect system to stack the deck in favor of getting out the union vote.
Regarding the allotment of delegates, the greater number of people at any one caucus, the bigger the number by which they are divided to determine the number of delegates they elect. This seems to be the opposite of what B. Clinton was screaming about.

Posted at January 18, 2008 9:12 AM in response to Let the People Vote

Am I missing something simple? I did a cursory google search and couldn’t find answers so someone please explain a few things.
Presumably the caucus goers have to be AT the caucus for the entire time that the votes are being decided. Are the casino workers going to leave their tables un-attended? Someone will be staffing the work positions and therefore unable to be at the caucus and vote. That means that a Saturday caucus day would cut down the casino worker vote. If a worker is off duty and able to participate it seems that a caucus near their home would be more convenient so they would be more likely to participate. What advantage is created by having a caucus in the casino?
Also, B Clinton said their vote would count five times more. How can that be?

Posted at January 17, 2008 7:39 PM in response to Let the People Vote