BTW, we paid the Taliban $49 million to stop growing poppies, just a few months before 9/11. Lot of good that did us. (Just an example of "paying the bad guys to work with us" gone wrong. There are plenty of such examples.)
That's not the kind of thing I was referring too. I was reffering to paying people for info or to be agents to infiltrate the organizations that cannot be penetrated by our regular cadre of agents. I would agree, the poppy idea was just plain stupid.
alot more people might be alive today and wars averted by better intelligence.
Or less bureacracy, from what I've heard. The government knew about the attacks, and did nothing with that info. I wonder what more nothing it would have done with more info.
I would agree that beauracracy was/is part of the problem, no doubt. But they did have bits and pieces but that was by alot of good work by some good agents who were ignored by their bosses or weren't connected becasue of stupid interagency pride. But they didn't have enough info to put it together. The intel community and the president get warnings from different areas all the time every day but sometimes not specific enough to do anything with unless there is enough info from within that organization.
You wonder what they might have done if they had enough or specific info. Probably exactly what they did to avert the year 2000 bombing of LAX. They got enough specific info just in time to avert that situation.
We didn't this time, only a small picture and not enough to act on. Perhaps with a few more weeks we might of.
I guess it comes down to each person deciding what they want their govt to do or they can handle morally. Do I like paying people that aren't neccisarily good guys ? No, on face value I don't. But there are also certain terrorist organizations we cannot infiltrate to avert massive death as witnessed on 9-11. It's a pure matter of opinion I guess. I look at the larger good. And it sounds to me like you struggle with it too ie: if it were a loved one and bending the rule in that case. But really it's the same scenario just that it's non specific and a much larger scale.
Without people in those organizations, more will die, it's as simple as that. Will it be your loved one ? I hope not but it will happen again. After the next one happens and we wonder what we could have done different, there's a place to start. It would be nice in a perfect world if we could have perfect moral symetry, it's not possible in the real world. I wish it was but it's simply isn't. Not getting the info when we have the means to do so seems putrid and a waste of life, all on the percieved idea of looking for that perfect black and white issue. Let me know when you find one. I don't think it's there personally. Either way, glad to debate with you anytime Lance and I must say, ....damn you put alot into your posts. And people thought I had long posts ;) just kidding. Excellent posts BTW I disagree obviously on some of it, but great posts no less.
One other question. Since you don't like us paying people who might be bad even though that might help us stop another 9-11 type attack due to a moral confliction. How do you feel about reduced sentancing to a criminal who gives info that leads to the arrest of a larger criminal ? It seems pretty similar morally. I mean if the guy is a criminal why should we give him anything or let him out sooner ?
How do you feel about reduced sentancing to a criminal who gives info that leads to the arrest of a larger criminal ?
I don't like it.
It seems pretty similar morally. I mean if the guy is a criminal why should we give him anything or let him out sooner ?
We shouldn't, unless we're talking about goal-based sentencing (i.e., reform-based)...in which case, narking on his old peers isn't necessarily a sign of progress or reform. By which I mean, I do see a possible valid reason to "reward" criminals or let them out sooner...but not as trade for clues and stuff. (unless...maybe. see next paragraph)
Though, at that level, in theory, you still have an individual person (a judge, I'd guess) who weighs that moral question and makes the call. Which is a more sound system than the one where the CIA is paying informants, I'd guess. I get a feeling like once you're at that level, it's not an individual who really makes the call, and accountability for the decision/action is dispersed throughout the bureaucracy.
I do think there are occurrences where it could be morally positive to get info from someone who has done wrong...it's just very sticky territory. Basically, you're saying to the person, "we'll sort of forget about what you did wrong, because you're helping us out." Which may or may not be the proper way to atone for that person's wrong deeds. If that person (who I start calling "kid" for some reason in a second) takes the free pass they get for doing the favor, and skips the proper atonement and learning (i.e., never really reforms), and then heads back into the world still a criminal at heart, then it was probably a morally sour deal. Unless the favor that kid did saves the world, I guess, or something great enough to outshine the fact that the kid will continue a life of crime because of the deal.
On the other hand, if the kid doing the favor ends up being his first step out of that life, and he takes his free pass as an opportunity to be the good person he wasn't being before, and the favor he does helps law enforcement save lives or whatever, then it's hard to argue that it wasn't a good idea.
Since such a decision can have both good/moral outcomes and bad/immoral ones, the big issue comes down to who is making the call (as to whether or not to make the trade-off).
My (worst-case) vision is that in the CIA or NSA, the person making that call is some shady-ass bureaucrat (or committee of bureaucrats, or chain of bureaucrats), whose morals have been shaken and stirred by years in a half-corrupt system, and who will most likely not be held accountable, in public or in their own minds, for any of those decisions. In which case, the odds that that very difficult moral weighing will be done poorly or in an imbalanced or unduly pressured way are very high.
If you take that down to the case of a state prisoner, whose record gets examined by a judge, who (ideally) does all the proper moral weighing and evaluating that he/she can, and he knocks a year off the sentence or something in exchange for a tip...then the odds that the moral equation is getting figured out correctly are better. Still way shaky, IMO, but hopefully much better. (Oh, except judges are still pretty well shielded, at least publicly, from accountability for their choices. Presumably, there are lots of judges who try hard to hold themselves accountable in their own minds...moreso than CIA/NSA administrators, I'm fairly certain.)
Even the personal scenario you posed is tough, because I (who would be making the decision) don't have all the knowledge needed to do the proper weighing. Not to mention my personal stake in the matter, emotional distress, etc, which would cloud my judgment. But even with a totally clear head, I can't know what the consequences of giving the good bad guys a free pass (in order to catch the bad bad guys) will be...so any moral call I would make in that case would be a guess at best. Which is shaky-shakorama, if lives are at stake.
Also, you frame your argument in broad strokes: "If we don't get the information, people will die" (to paraphrase). But I don't believe morality works in broad strokes. The issue comes down to "What good comes from paying this_specific_person to help us. What bad comes from it?" If we pay the guy for a false tip, and he uses the money to buy a gun and shoot some innocent, then it doesn't seem right to place that under the same umbrella you are using to justify paying the other guy who gives us that sweet info we need to save thousands of lives that would've otherwise perished. The innocent person who specific person #1 kills with the gun we pay for could be the woman who was pregnant with the kid who would have grown up to cure cancer. In which case, that's our bad...big time. Really big time.
But we don't know who the people are who might be killed or robbed or terrorized by our sorta-partners inside the terrorist networks, and "Without people in those organizations, more will die, it's as simple as that."...so I guess my moral quibbling about the cancer-curer's mom is just philosophical issue for the non-existent moral symmetry world.
To me, if something our government does inadvertently (or advertently) gets the person who would figure out the cure for cancer killed, then it would be almost impossible to justify our way out of it. And for all we know, we've killed folks like that (or funded the killing of them) hundreds of times over.
Which is all just ponderous hoo-ha...unless we really have financed the person who killed the person who would have cured cancer. In which case, it's a giant tragedy that we just don't know about, because we don't know the story behind the consequences of the decisions made by the bureaucracies that we trust to make the decisions you wish they were making.
Which, BTW, they probably are making...since the USA-Patriot Act basically re-legalized the type of stuff you're advocating.
(damn, another huge post. I swear I don't try to make them big..it just happens)
Some of us have argued that the sharply increased, dangerous rise in international bellicosity since 9/11 is largely the consequence of very wrong examples and moves issuing from the Bush administration.
Now Amnesty International has released a report pointing out that human rights abuses have also grown worse around the world in the months following September's tragedy.
This is further vindication for those who resisted the "war" on terrorism from the onset, taking the position that our response should have been based on police and legal measures rather than open-ended, heavyhanded militarism.
It's plain, now, that the path our leaders took has led to too many far-reaching, negative influences and precedents.
Regis T. Sabol is a screaming Liberal and no matter what Dubya does, Sabol's gonna rip him for it.
Strange he points out that using a plane as a bomb has been a known possiblity since 1994 yet he doesn't say a word about Clinton's failures with Al Qaeda.
I guess I just shouldn't expect even handedness.
With the right wingers it was, "It's all Clinton's fault". Now "It's all Dubya's fault" is the rally cry.
Where do you look for this new kind of enemy ? An enemy who uses our own freedoms against us ? Would it not be irresponsible to fail to look for fear of intruding on the lives of innocents ?
Is this not the same nonsense which in part led the FBI hierchy to fail to look more intently at flight schools ? So as not to be accused of profiling.
It's amazing the lenghts I guess some will go to. The writer obviously has an ax to grind that goes far beyond constructive criticism. The flaws in that story are endless. But to say the least as THX said it is odd that he failed to point out nothing about the Clinton years and the warnings and even attacks etc under his watch, this whole thing was planned when his guy was still in the White House. But that wouldn't make a good column if you're trying to politically trash someone you dislike. I won't fault him for it, colunists do it all the time on every side of the aisle. I am merely pointing out the flaws and or lies in his column. One other thing he failed to mention. Bush had CIA director George Tenet and FBI dir.Louis Freeh finish out there tenure under his admin. He could have replaced them. They were BOTH Clinton's nominees and were in office when all of this was being done.
Personally I have said in the past that I don't fault either admin. completely, could they have done more ? Sure in highindsight I suppose. They both could have. This guy's been around a long time and due to either political correctness or apathy we allowed him to flourish. We now know what is needed to prevent or lessen the chances of another 9-11 but we won't. We'll stick to the same b.s that got us here because of people like him. Meanwhile we'll continue to frisk the little old lady from Passedena at the airport instead of the 20 year old "student" with an expried visa from Saudi Arabia. That would be profiling.
Was/is there a massive drop of the ball in the intell community ? You bet there was. Some of it was there own fault and some because of the short leash they had been given in the last few years. But he makes no mention of that at all. Gee I wonder who hogtied the intell community ? Nah, nothing to see there Regis. They tied up the dog with chain and then got mad at him when the house was broken into. Does it exhonerate the CIA or FBI, heavans no. But someone not blinded by political hatred could see that.
Sadly I can only imagine the screams from columnists like him and others if in August of 01' we implemented the measures we have today. Seems to me you can't please people like him. Do what's needed and you're stripping his/their rights. Do nothing and it's still your fault.
"In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment.
"In the report, the administration for the first time mostly blames human actionsfor recent global warming. It says the main culprit is the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
What's to make of this? Are the Bush folks setting aside politics to speak what is sees as the truth?
Did The Drug War Claim Another 3,056 Casualties On 9-11?
By Arianna Huffington
The Phoenix memo. The Rowley letter. The Oklahoma red flag. All elements in this true and tragic story of fumbling feds that has more smoking guns than a Quentin Tarantino movie.
So why did the FBI, whose job it is find smoking guns, fail to see the smoking guns popping up all around it?
In announcing his big reorganization plans, Director Robert Mueller seemed to consider the FBI's tragedy of errors a question of flawed management flow charts, nothing that a rejiggered PowerPoint presentation couldn't fix. But there was a much more fundamental problem plaguing the bureau before Sept. 11. And it wasn't one of office politics, but of office-wide priorities. Namely, the agency's crippling addiction to America's war on drugs.
While Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida minions were diligently preparing for their murderous mission, the FBI was looking the other way with equal determination. More than twice as many FBI agents were assigned to fighting drugs (2,500) than fighting terrorism (1,151). And a far greater amount of the FBI's financial resources was dedicated to the war on drugs.
And this pathological prioritization of the drug war extended well beyond the allocation of money and manpower. It was ingrained in the culture. Counterterrorism units were treated like the bureau's ugly stepchildren, looked down upon by FBI management because they weren't making the kind of high-profile arrests that spruce up a supervisor's resume and make the evening news. Let's face it, canvassing flight schools in search of suspicious students is nowhere near as sexy as one of those big drug busts with the bags of coke or bales of pot piled high for the cameras.
It's now painfully clear that there were terror warning signs aplenty but that they were disregarded by distracted FBI officials who had their eyes on a very different prize.
The FBI's mission and original purpose was for domestic homegrown crime. The CIA is better equipped to handle terrorism because of its international capabilities. Therefore the inbalance of agents working those cases. I would agree to some extent that the war on drugs has more resources thrown at it then it should.
They probably had enough agents it's just that they for whatever reason dropped the ball BIG time !
Trying to equate the two is like saying there would be less murders if cops weren't spending so much time catching speeders. It's a strech at best.
Their hands are tied anyway. Now that they are putting more resources towards fighting terror (400 more agents), the left is screaming about their tactics.
FBI can't monitor the internet. Can't infiltrate extremist groups. Can use moles.......
It's a no win situation. Can you imagine if last July Bush would have taken measures at the airport like we have now ? Holy shit, people are bitching now and this is AFTER we were attacked I can only imagine if we would have done it before, my god they'd have had coronaries. On one hand they will say we arent doing enough and on the other complain about what we are doing or opposing what really needs to be done, you can't have it both ways. As I said the other day meanwhile we'll continue to frisk the grandmother from Fargo flying to Vegas and not the 20 year old from Saudi Arabia, profiling is bad you know. As Ferrrous Pegs said so well. P.C is litterally killing us.
In his remarks Saturday to graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, President Bush may have signaled the beginning of the end of this victim attitude. Halfway through his speech, he said: "...our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."(italics mine)
Preemptive action, not reaction, is what's needed. The president said we must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries. Let's start with one cell in one country, besides Afghanistan. Villagers in some backward country that harbors terrorists should wake up one morning and notice the terrorists among them are dead or missing. People like Saddam Hussein, not Americans, should start each day looking in the mirror and wondering if today is their last day on Earth. Money should be missing from terrorist bank accounts all over the world as American intelligence confiscates large amounts of cash through electronic transfers. Terrorist cells in this country should be located, their headquarters raided and their members arrested before they know what hit them.
Authorities should recruit responsible Arab-Americans and freedom-loving Muslims to help in the effort. They would prove that they put America and freedom before any other nation or cause if they were seen turning in those who are plotting against the United States.
We've had enough warnings. Besides, what can we do? Remain vigilant? What does that mean? Is a terrorist likely to leave a briefcase nuke at a bus stop?
It's time to go on the offensive. President Bush correctly told the West Point graduating class, "We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systematically break them" -- that should also apply to tyrant Yasser Arafat and his broken treaties and promises. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
America needs a morale boost like Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle's air raid on Japan, which restored America's confidence 60 years ago. Militarily, the attack was not fully successful, but the United States struck a psychological blow from which Japan never recovered. The Doolittle raid literally changed the course and most likely the outcome of World War II.
Despite the exercise of our power in Afghanistan, the United States appears at the mercy of those who hate us. The FBI and CIA have been exposed as incompetent. The stock market lacks confidence. Is there something proportional to the Doolittle raid the administration could come up with to reverse course and boost morale?
Let's stop waiting for terrorists to do us harm and start doing them harm. We shouldn't be thinking about deterrence. We should be planning to wipe them out, starting now, and then start planning the victory parades.
I notice that the small section of the FBI which has been in charge of investigating white-collar crime will also be whittled away to provide more agents and related resources for fighting terrorism -- which is increasingly taking the unsettling form of lethally eroding our precious Bill of Rights.
That's not a smart move.
It's very evident -- from the Enron, Anderson, Merrill-Lynch and Tyco cases (just to name the most prominent) -- that crime in the suites of American Big Business has become broadly pervasive.
A Marxist friend of mine goes further, saying the system has been thoroughly corrupted by its endemic greed, and that an eventual, total collapse is inevitable.
Now, since our nation is no longer one in which common people's interests rule, but where oligarchic goals and objectives determine policy at all levels...what will happen to America if its foreign affairs are further degraded -- made more and more blatantly hegemonistic and imperialistic -- under the growing influence of the greed-based depravity we've seen running rampant in the aforementioned firms?
Which are representative of the capitalist establishment as a whole.
With foreign policy increasingly driven by the corrupt selfishness of top corporations and leading financial institutions, America will inevitably run even more rage-producingly roughshod over Third World countries and their people.
The Cal Thomas piece, which Rob apparently endorses, is a perfect example of what I'm driving at.
A translation from a U.S. multinational-corporate perspective would be: "We need to hit anybody who in any way resists our prerogative to profit at any location on this planet."
Label them all terrorists, and begin the carpet bombing!
Without any provocation, other than a desire to see sovereign destinies free of Wall Street's blatant predation.
Again, we're totally screwing up the response to real terrorism.
Becoming an ever worse, piratic bully in an exponentially expanding number of outraged international minds.
Rob, I disagree with you on whether or not the people would have complained had Bush taken stpes earlier to prevent 9-11.
I don't know Bill, I guess it's just my opinion. I see how some are reacting now AFTER we were attacked and it just leads me to believe that if we did have specific info or better info and those measures were done that people would have been all over him like no tomorrow. Because I see the ones that complain knowing what we know. Then again, perhaps those that do complain are the people that would anyway strictly out of politics regardless of what's being done.
Been too busy lately to do much on internet. Just thought I would check in on the old group.
I think that it is funny how some here are crying about the "evil rich people" and then we find that they support people who are making 6 digits plus bennies.
I hear ya, it's that time of year. What's that saying about Minnesota and summer. "Better get it done now while you can", or something like that.
You know, I don't have a problem with a union head making a 6 figure income. I do have a problem with that union head bitching about the rich & oppression of the worker.
"Better get it done now while you can", or something like that.
I have been helping a friend pack and move, helping my brother-in-law build a huge garage and building a deck overlooking the lake at the mother-in-law's. In my spare time (LOL) I have been working with another guy trying to build a BMX track for the kids in town and remodeling a bedroom for my son.
I took tonight off to spend time signing my son up for swimming lessons and take him to the library for a while.
The wife is getting mad because I haven't tilled the garden yet, so I suppose I will have to do that soon as well.
Those union head salaries are high, but they're pretty large organizations with lots of activities. I'm sure there are a lot of demands. And the union people are right -- compared to the CEO's of comparablea sized companies the union head salares aren't nearly as high. And the leaders of the union probably posses the skills and connections that coulld earn them much better money somewhere else.
Uniions are democracies and leadership can be voted out if members don't feel they are earning their pay. How often can workers do that to the CEO who is running the company into the ground?
Does being an advocate for working people require that you sleep in a hair shirt?
At what salary level do you lose your sincerity and commitment?
Aside from a few marginal exceptions, I haven't heard many people say that rich people are "evil."
That's Limbaugh talking. And Dan hangs on his every word.
Those union head salaries are high, but they're pretty large organizations with lots of activities.
Of the monies that they extort from the workers, they spend pennies protecting the worker and donate millions to politians.
compared to the CEO's of comparablea sized companies the union head salares aren't nearly as high.
This somehow makes it right for the unions to say you can not work here unless you pay us?
How often can workers do that to the CEO who is running the company into the ground?
The shareholders do that for them.
Does being an advocate for working people require that you sleep in a hair shirt?
At what salary level do you lose your sincerity and commitment?
Does it mean that you deserve to make 10 times what the highest paid worker paying your salary makes?
Aside from a few marginal exceptions, I haven't heard many people say that rich people are "evil."
B.S. We hear it almost daily from many different places.
That's Limbaugh talking. And Dan hangs on his every word.
This is the best you can come up with? I have stated many times that I don't even listen to the man, yet you try to demean my statements instead of providing facts to back up your side? My link was to an AP article, not Limbaugh's website.
Check out the glitterati who have shown up at congressional hearings recently: Julia Roberts. Christie Brinkley. Michael J. Fox. Kevin Richardson of the Backstreet Boys.
It's the Backstreet Boy that has Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, fuming. Richardson was scheduled to appear Thursday before a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee. He was to testify on mountaintop removal mining, a controversial practice in which the top of a ridge or mountain is sheared off to expose a coal seam, pushing dirt and rock into nearby valleys and waterways.
Off the top of my head. I think it suffices. You did little but answer a few of my question, with a question.
"I have stated many times that I don't even listen to the man, yet you try to demean my statements instead of providing facts to back up your side?"
What facts do you think I need to bolster my argument? I agree, those are high salaries. I gave what I thought might be a few reasons. You called them extortionists. Said they were sqandering the money. Living high off the hog at the expense of the members.
You provide some evidence. You made the charge.
Take down the logo from EIB and quit giving me every reason to believe you do listen to him (because you totally borrow his rhetoric) and maybe I'll stop.
I'm not speaking for Dan but don't you think it's a bit unfair to automatically lump his views in with Rush's. He's a conservative so he's bound to have some of the same views of conservatives who don't listen to his show. Does that mean it's "his" rhetroic ? So everytime you take a liberal stance we should tell you to quit using Molly Ivins material or rhetoric? You might have some of the exact same ideology as her or other liberal commentators it doesn't mean that you are simply repeating her or anyone else, it's simply because on many issues you're coming from a similar view.
I do not follow a single person or group of people. I am a free thinker with my own ideas. If someone makes a claim that catches my attention, I look into it further for what the truth is before making my own mind up on the subject. For the most part, I tend to lean toward the conservative side of things, but not always.
I have stated before that I think that the party system (Dems, Reps, etc.) should be abolished and we can actually pick a representative based on their thoughts and abilities as apposed to what party they are from as many now do. I feel that our country would be better off without the "get the other party" mentality that seems to come from most politicians in our country.
As an example, look at how many Democrats followed the talking points about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that was out to "get" the Clinton's. And yes, Rick, I am sure that you can show me how Rush and some other Republicans are anti-anything that is Democrat.
There is good and bad in any party, just like there is good and bad in any candidate. I do not think that Daschle or Bush are perfect, however, I do find myself siding with Bush more than Daschle.
As for living high off the hog, go to the U. S. Dept. of Laborwebsite and search for officers of the unions making more than $100,000 and you get a list of more than 500 individuals. So many that it asks you to "refine your search". If you do this you will find that people like John Jurik of the AUTO WORKERS AFL-CIO made over $1,000,000 in 2000, Dick Walsh of the CARPENTERS IND made $666,099 (he is a trustee), Catherine Reed of STEELWORKERS AFL-CIO made $887,628 (she is a treasurer), etc. If these are not the rich people that Daschle and others have been talking about, then who is?
And yes, I call them extortionist. I would also call an employer who says that I must give them part of my pay for the privilege of working for the company an extortionist as well. I also call senators and representatives who threaten me with jail time if I refuse to pay my taxes so they can spend it on things not listed in the constitution extortionist as well.
By the way, what is EIB? I will see what I can do about the logo since it is a little outdated. How about this one?
Oh, it is good to be back and I am glad to see you are still here.
Thanks.
Lance,
That's not the kind of thing I was referring too. I was reffering to paying people for info or to be agents to infiltrate the organizations that cannot be penetrated by our regular cadre of agents. I would agree, the poppy idea was just plain stupid.
alot more people might be alive today and wars averted by better intelligence.
I would agree that beauracracy was/is part of the problem, no doubt. But
they did have bits and pieces but that was by alot of good work by some good agents who were ignored by their bosses or weren't connected becasue of stupid interagency pride. But they didn't have enough info to put it together. The intel community and the president get warnings from different areas all the time every day but sometimes not specific enough to do anything with unless there is enough info from within that organization.
You wonder what they might have done if they had enough or specific info. Probably exactly what they did to avert the year 2000 bombing of LAX. They got enough specific info just in time to avert that situation.
We didn't this time, only a small picture and not enough to act on. Perhaps with a few more weeks we might of.
I guess it comes down to each person deciding what they want their govt to do or they can handle morally. Do I like paying people that aren't neccisarily good guys ? No, on face value I don't. But there are also certain terrorist organizations we cannot infiltrate to avert massive death as witnessed on 9-11. It's a pure matter of opinion I guess. I look at the larger good. And it sounds to me like you struggle with it too ie: if it were a loved one and bending the rule in that case. But really it's the same scenario just that it's non specific and a much larger scale.
Without people in those organizations, more will die, it's as simple as that. Will it be your loved one ? I hope not but it will happen again. After the next one happens and we wonder what we could have done different, there's a place to start. It would be nice in a perfect world if we could have perfect moral symetry, it's not possible in the real world. I wish it was but it's simply isn't. Not getting the info when we have the means to do so seems putrid and a waste of life, all on the percieved idea of looking for that perfect black and white issue. Let me know when you find one. I don't think it's there personally. Either way, glad to debate with you anytime Lance and I must say, ....damn you put alot into your posts. And people thought I had long posts ;) just kidding. Excellent posts BTW I disagree obviously on some of it, but great posts no less.
Lance,
One other question. Since you don't like us paying people who might be bad even though that might help us stop another 9-11 type attack due to a moral confliction. How do you feel about reduced sentancing to a criminal who gives info that leads to the arrest of a larger criminal ? It seems pretty similar morally. I mean if the guy is a criminal why should we give him anything or let him out sooner ?
I don't like it.
We shouldn't, unless we're talking about goal-based sentencing (i.e., reform-based)...in which case, narking on his old peers isn't necessarily a sign of progress or reform. By which I mean, I do see a possible valid reason to "reward" criminals or let them out sooner...but not as trade for clues and stuff. (unless...maybe. see next paragraph)
Though, at that level, in theory, you still have an individual person (a judge, I'd guess) who weighs that moral question and makes the call. Which is a more sound system than the one where the CIA is paying informants, I'd guess. I get a feeling like once you're at that level, it's not an individual who really makes the call, and accountability for the decision/action is dispersed throughout the bureaucracy.
I do think there are occurrences where it could be morally positive to get info from someone who has done wrong...it's just very sticky territory. Basically, you're saying to the person, "we'll sort of forget about what you did wrong, because you're helping us out." Which may or may not be the proper way to atone for that person's wrong deeds. If that person (who I start calling "kid" for some reason in a second) takes the free pass they get for doing the favor, and skips the proper atonement and learning (i.e., never really reforms), and then heads back into the world still a criminal at heart, then it was probably a morally sour deal. Unless the favor that kid did saves the world, I guess, or something great enough to outshine the fact that the kid will continue a life of crime because of the deal.
On the other hand, if the kid doing the favor ends up being his first step out of that life, and he takes his free pass as an opportunity to be the good person he wasn't being before, and the favor he does helps law enforcement save lives or whatever, then it's hard to argue that it wasn't a good idea.
Since such a decision can have both good/moral outcomes and bad/immoral ones, the big issue comes down to who is making the call (as to whether or not to make the trade-off).
My (worst-case) vision is that in the CIA or NSA, the person making that call is some shady-ass bureaucrat (or committee of bureaucrats, or chain of bureaucrats), whose morals have been shaken and stirred by years in a half-corrupt system, and who will most likely not be held accountable, in public or in their own minds, for any of those decisions. In which case, the odds that that very difficult moral weighing will be done poorly or in an imbalanced or unduly pressured way are very high.
If you take that down to the case of a state prisoner, whose record gets examined by a judge, who (ideally) does all the proper moral weighing and evaluating that he/she can, and he knocks a year off the sentence or something in exchange for a tip...then the odds that the moral equation is getting figured out correctly are better. Still way shaky, IMO, but hopefully much better. (Oh, except judges are still pretty well shielded, at least publicly, from accountability for their choices. Presumably, there are lots of judges who try hard to hold themselves accountable in their own minds...moreso than CIA/NSA administrators, I'm fairly certain.)
Even the personal scenario you posed is tough, because I (who would be making the decision) don't have all the knowledge needed to do the proper weighing. Not to mention my personal stake in the matter, emotional distress, etc, which would cloud my judgment. But even with a totally clear head, I can't know what the consequences of giving the good bad guys a free pass (in order to catch the bad bad guys) will be...so any moral call I would make in that case would be a guess at best. Which is shaky-shakorama, if lives are at stake.
Also, you frame your argument in broad strokes: "If we don't get the information, people will die" (to paraphrase). But I don't believe morality works in broad strokes. The issue comes down to "What good comes from paying this_specific_person to help us. What bad comes from it?" If we pay the guy for a false tip, and he uses the money to buy a gun and shoot some innocent, then it doesn't seem right to place that under the same umbrella you are using to justify paying the other guy who gives us that sweet info we need to save thousands of lives that would've otherwise perished. The innocent person who specific person #1 kills with the gun we pay for could be the woman who was pregnant with the kid who would have grown up to cure cancer. In which case, that's our bad...big time. Really big time.
But we don't know who the people are who might be killed or robbed or terrorized by our sorta-partners inside the terrorist networks, and "Without people in those organizations, more will die, it's as simple as that."...so I guess my moral quibbling about the cancer-curer's mom is just philosophical issue for the non-existent moral symmetry world.
To me, if something our government does inadvertently (or advertently) gets the person who would figure out the cure for cancer killed, then it would be almost impossible to justify our way out of it. And for all we know, we've killed folks like that (or funded the killing of them) hundreds of times over.
Which is all just ponderous hoo-ha...unless we really have financed the person who killed the person who would have cured cancer. In which case, it's a giant tragedy that we just don't know about, because we don't know the story behind the consequences of the decisions made by the bureaucracies that we trust to make the decisions you wish they were making.
Which, BTW, they probably are making...since the USA-Patriot Act basically re-legalized the type of stuff you're advocating.
(damn, another huge post. I swear I don't try to make them big..it just happens)
(edited for clarity and typos)
http://europe.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/28/amnesty.report/index.html
Some of us have argued that the sharply increased,
dangerous rise in international bellicosity since
9/11 is largely the consequence of very wrong examples and moves issuing from the Bush administration.
Now Amnesty International has released a report
pointing out that human rights abuses have also grown worse around the world in the months following September's tragedy.
This is further vindication for those who resisted
the "war" on terrorism from the onset, taking the position that our response should have been based on police and legal measures rather than open-ended, heavyhanded militarism.
It's plain, now, that the path our leaders took
has led to too many far-reaching, negative influences and precedents.
Both abroad and at home.
Regis T. Sabol is a screaming Liberal and no matter what Dubya does, Sabol's gonna rip him for it.
Strange he points out that using a plane as a bomb has been a known possiblity since 1994 yet he doesn't say a word about Clinton's failures with Al Qaeda.
I guess I just shouldn't expect even handedness.
With the right wingers it was, "It's all Clinton's fault". Now "It's all Dubya's fault" is the rally cry.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20020602-70533128.htm
I'm very pleased that a leading conservative politician
has come out strongly against the FBI's new secret police excesses...
Dennis Rahkonen 6/3/02 4:29am
Where do you look for this new kind of enemy ? An enemy who uses our own freedoms against us ? Would it not be irresponsible to fail to look for fear of intruding on the lives of innocents ?
Is this not the same nonsense which in part led the FBI hierchy to fail to look more intently at flight schools ? So as not to be accused of profiling.
PC'ness is quite literally killing us
Which poster to these boards is the watcher ?
I'm hopeing, one of em is !
Which poster to these boards is the watcher?
What do you mean? An FBI informant?
No not an informant
someone on the payroll
I don't know of any agents that frequent PF but, you never know.
I'm ok with that. I've got nothing to hide. I have no issues with the FBI or the like frequenting a public forum such as this to gather information.
Why does this board require FBI monitoring? Are you actually serious?
I can't think of a reason to monitor THIS board but I don't have a problem with it if they did. It is a public forum.
Interesting article Bill.
It's amazing the lenghts I guess some will go to. The writer obviously has an ax to grind that goes far beyond constructive criticism. The flaws in that story are endless. But to say the least as THX said it is odd that he failed to point out nothing about the Clinton years and the warnings and even attacks etc under his watch, this whole thing was planned when his guy was still in the White House. But that wouldn't make a good column if you're trying to politically trash someone you dislike. I won't fault him for it, colunists do it all the time on every side of the aisle. I am merely pointing out the flaws and or lies in his column. One other thing he failed to mention. Bush had CIA director George Tenet and FBI dir.Louis Freeh finish out there tenure under his admin. He could have replaced them. They were BOTH Clinton's nominees and were in office when all of this was being done.
Personally I have said in the past that I don't fault either admin. completely, could they have done more ? Sure in highindsight I suppose. They both could have. This guy's been around a long time and due to either political correctness or apathy we allowed him to flourish. We now know what is needed to prevent or lessen the chances of another 9-11 but we won't. We'll stick to the same b.s that got us here because of people like him. Meanwhile we'll continue to frisk the little old lady from Passedena at the airport instead of the 20 year old "student" with an expried visa from Saudi Arabia. That would be profiling.
Was/is there a massive drop of the ball in the intell community ? You bet there was. Some of it was there own fault and some because of the short leash they had been given in the last few years. But he makes no mention of that at all. Gee I wonder who hogtied the intell community ? Nah, nothing to see there Regis. They tied up the dog with chain and then got mad at him when the house was broken into. Does it exhonerate the CIA or FBI, heavans no. But someone not blinded by political hatred could see that.
Sadly I can only imagine the screams from columnists like him and others if in August of 01' we implemented the measures we have today. Seems to me you can't please people like him. Do what's needed and you're stripping his/their rights. Do nothing and it's still your fault.
Then we are in complete agreement
was just both trying to make a point and make the man think simultaneously
Well said Ferrous Pegs !
In today's New York Times:
"In a stark shift for the Bush administration, the United States has sent a climate report to the United Nations detailing specific and far-reaching effects that it says global warming will inflict on the American environment.
"In the report, the administration for the first time mostly blames human actionsfor recent global warming. It says the main culprit is the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."
What's to make of this? Are the Bush folks setting aside politics to speak what is sees as the truth?
Did Bush read "Earth in the Balance?"
Did The Drug War Claim Another 3,056 Casualties On 9-11?
By Arianna Huffington
The Phoenix memo. The Rowley letter. The Oklahoma red flag. All elements in
this true and tragic story of fumbling feds that has more smoking guns than
a Quentin Tarantino movie.
So why did the FBI, whose job it is find smoking guns, fail to see the
smoking guns popping up all around it?
In announcing his big reorganization plans, Director Robert Mueller seemed
to consider the FBI's tragedy of errors a question of flawed management flow
charts, nothing that a rejiggered PowerPoint presentation couldn't fix. But
there was a much more fundamental problem plaguing the bureau before Sept.
11. And it wasn't one of office politics, but of office-wide priorities.
Namely, the agency's crippling addiction to America's war on drugs.
While Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida minions were diligently preparing for
their murderous mission, the FBI was looking the other way with equal
determination. More than twice as many FBI agents were assigned to fighting
drugs (2,500) than fighting terrorism (1,151). And a far greater amount of
the FBI's financial resources was dedicated to the war on drugs.
And this pathological prioritization of the drug war extended well beyond
the allocation of money and manpower. It was ingrained in the culture.
Counterterrorism units were treated like the bureau's ugly stepchildren,
looked down upon by FBI management because they weren't making the kind of
high-profile arrests that spruce up a supervisor's resume and make the
evening news. Let's face it, canvassing flight schools in search of
suspicious students is nowhere near as sexy as one of those big drug busts
with the bags of coke or bales of pot piled high for the cameras.
It's now painfully clear that there were terror warning signs aplenty but
that they were disregarded by distracted FBI officials who had their eyes on
a very different prize.
Read the rest here...
---------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe, visit
http: www.ariannaonline.com/columns/maillist.html.
Lance,
One little problem with that asssertion.
The FBI's mission and original purpose was for domestic homegrown crime. The CIA is better equipped to handle terrorism because of its international capabilities. Therefore the inbalance of agents working those cases. I would agree to some extent that the war on drugs has more resources thrown at it then it should.
They probably had enough agents it's just that they for whatever reason dropped the ball BIG time !
Trying to equate the two is like saying there would be less murders if cops weren't spending so much time catching speeders. It's a strech at best.
Their hands are tied anyway. Now that they are putting more resources towards fighting terror (400 more agents), the left is screaming about their tactics.
FBI can't monitor the internet. Can't infiltrate extremist groups. Can use moles.......
It's a no win situation. Can you imagine if last July Bush would have taken measures at the airport like we have now ? Holy shit, people are bitching now and this is AFTER we were attacked I can only imagine if we would have done it before, my god they'd have had coronaries. On one hand they will say we arent doing enough and on the other complain about what we are doing or opposing what really needs to be done, you can't have it both ways. As I said the other day meanwhile we'll continue to frisk the grandmother from Fargo flying to Vegas and not the 20 year old from Saudi Arabia, profiling is bad you know. As Ferrrous Pegs said so well. P.C is litterally killing us.
As Ferrrous Pegs said so well. P.C is litterally killing us.
and that's not just a recent development either. its been killing us for a decade or more.
Agreed. Good point !
CAL THOMAS: Victim or victory?
Tribune Media Services
Copyright © 2002 Nando Media
Copyright © 2002 Star Tribune
In his remarks Saturday to graduates of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, President Bush may have signaled the beginning of the end of this victim attitude. Halfway through his speech, he said: "...our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives."(italics mine)
Preemptive action, not reaction, is what's needed. The president said we must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries. Let's start with one cell in one country, besides Afghanistan. Villagers in some backward country that harbors terrorists should wake up one morning and notice the terrorists among them are dead or missing. People like Saddam Hussein, not Americans, should start each day looking in the mirror and wondering if today is their last day on Earth. Money should be missing from terrorist bank accounts all over the world as American intelligence confiscates large amounts of cash through electronic transfers. Terrorist cells in this country should be located, their headquarters raided and their members arrested before they know what hit them.
Authorities should recruit responsible Arab-Americans and freedom-loving Muslims to help in the effort. They would prove that they put America and freedom before any other nation or cause if they were seen turning in those who are plotting against the United States.
We've had enough warnings. Besides, what can we do? Remain vigilant? What does that mean? Is a terrorist likely to leave a briefcase nuke at a bus stop?
It's time to go on the offensive. President Bush correctly told the West Point graduating class, "We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systematically break them" -- that should also apply to tyrant Yasser Arafat and his broken treaties and promises. "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long."
America needs a morale boost like Lt. Col. Jimmy Doolittle's air raid on Japan, which restored America's confidence 60 years ago. Militarily, the attack was not fully successful, but the United States struck a psychological blow from which Japan never recovered. The Doolittle raid literally changed the course and most likely the outcome of World War II.
Despite the exercise of our power in Afghanistan, the United States appears at the mercy of those who hate us. The FBI and CIA have been exposed as incompetent. The stock market lacks confidence. Is there something proportional to the Doolittle raid the administration could come up with to reverse course and boost morale?
Let's stop waiting for terrorists to do us harm and start doing them harm. We shouldn't be thinking about deterrence. We should be planning to wipe them out, starting now, and then start planning the victory parades.
http://24hour.startribune.com/24hour/opinions/story/423615p-3381329c.html
I notice that the small section of the FBI which has been in charge of investigating white-collar crime will also be whittled away to
provide more agents and related resources for fighting terrorism --
which is increasingly taking the unsettling form of lethally eroding
our precious Bill of Rights.
That's not a smart move.
It's very evident -- from the Enron, Anderson, Merrill-Lynch and Tyco cases (just to name the most prominent) -- that crime in the suites of American Big Business has become broadly pervasive.
A Marxist friend of mine goes further, saying the system has been thoroughly corrupted by its endemic greed, and that an eventual, total collapse is inevitable.
Now, since our nation is no longer one in which common people's interests rule, but where oligarchic goals and objectives determine
policy at all levels...what will happen to America if its foreign affairs are further degraded -- made more and more blatantly hegemonistic and imperialistic -- under the growing influence of the greed-based depravity we've seen running rampant in the aforementioned
firms?
Which are representative of the capitalist establishment as a whole.
With foreign policy increasingly driven by the corrupt selfishness
of top corporations and leading financial institutions, America will
inevitably run even more rage-producingly roughshod over Third World countries and their people.
The Cal Thomas piece, which Rob apparently endorses, is a perfect example of what I'm driving at.
A translation from a U.S. multinational-corporate perspective would be: "We need to hit anybody who in any way resists our prerogative to
profit at any location on this planet."
Label them all terrorists, and begin the carpet bombing!
Without any provocation, other than a desire to see sovereign destinies free of Wall Street's blatant predation.
Again, we're totally screwing up the response to real terrorism.
Becoming an ever worse, piratic bully in an exponentially expanding
number of outraged international minds.
Better security?
Yeah, sure...
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=306&mode=thread&order=0
Connecting the dots reveals terrorists of April 12, 2002...
Rob, I disagree with you on whether or not the people would have complained had Bush taken stpes earlier to prevent 9-11.
As usual you are wrong, fold. The public wouldn't have stood for it.
Dennis,
Enough said,..... NEXT.
Things you'll never hear come out of my mouth.
"A Marxist friend of mine........."
Forever begins right now, and God has given us numerous ways to enjoy Him, including being in bed with the person to whom you're married.
Rob, I disagree with you on whether or not the people would have complained had Bush taken stpes earlier to prevent 9-11.
I don't know Bill, I guess it's just my opinion. I see how some are reacting now AFTER we were attacked and it just leads me to believe that if we did have specific info or better info and those measures were done that people would have been all over him like no tomorrow. Because I see the ones that complain knowing what we know. Then again, perhaps those that do complain are the people that would anyway strictly out of politics regardless of what's being done.
Petey and Rahkonen should get together to talk nonsense
Those evil, rich people.
Hey Dan! Long time no see.
Great link. We were just discussing Teachers Unions.
Hey THX.
Been too busy lately to do much on internet. Just thought I would check in on the old group.
I think that it is funny how some here are crying about the "evil rich people" and then we find that they support people who are making 6 digits plus bennies.
I hear ya, it's that time of year. What's that saying about Minnesota and summer. "Better get it done now while you can", or something like that.
You know, I don't have a problem with a union head making a 6 figure income. I do have a problem with that union head bitching about the rich & oppression of the worker.
:-)
I do have a problem with that union head bitching about the rich & oppression of the worker.
Isn't it oppressing a worker to demand that he/she must pay the 6 figure salary plus bennies to the union head in order to keep his/her job?
"Better get it done now while you can", or something like that.
I have been helping a friend pack and move, helping my brother-in-law build a huge garage and building a deck overlooking the lake at the mother-in-law's. In my spare time (LOL) I have been working with another guy trying to build a BMX track for the kids in town and remodeling a bedroom for my son.
I took tonight off to spend time signing my son up for swimming lessons and take him to the library for a while.
The wife is getting mad because I haven't tilled the garden yet, so I suppose I will have to do that soon as well.
Afghan and Kashmir sweaters.
Father's Day.
Al Qaeda.
Beware.
;-)
And on another issue bearing heavily on all of our lives:
Can anyone tell me if underground miners have restrooms down at the bottoms of their pits?
Or do they surface when nature calls?
Those union head salaries are high, but they're pretty large organizations with lots of activities. I'm sure there are a lot of demands. And the union people are right -- compared to the CEO's of comparablea sized companies the union head salares aren't nearly as high. And the leaders of the union probably posses the skills and connections that coulld earn them much better money somewhere else.
Uniions are democracies and leadership can be voted out if members don't feel they are earning their pay. How often can workers do that to the CEO who is running the company into the ground?
Does being an advocate for working people require that you sleep in a hair shirt?
At what salary level do you lose your sincerity and commitment?
Aside from a few marginal exceptions, I haven't heard many people say that rich people are "evil."
That's Limbaugh talking. And Dan hangs on his every word.
Those union head salaries are high, but they're pretty large organizations with lots of activities.
Of the monies that they extort from the workers, they spend pennies protecting the worker and donate millions to politians.
compared to the CEO's of comparablea sized companies the union head salares aren't nearly as high.
This somehow makes it right for the unions to say you can not work here unless you pay us?
How often can workers do that to the CEO who is running the company into the ground?
The shareholders do that for them.
Does being an advocate for working people require that you sleep in a hair shirt?
At what salary level do you lose your sincerity and commitment?
Does it mean that you deserve to make 10 times what the highest paid worker paying your salary makes?
Aside from a few marginal exceptions, I haven't heard many people say that rich people are "evil."
B.S. We hear it almost daily from many different places.
That's Limbaugh talking. And Dan hangs on his every word.
This is the best you can come up with? I have stated many times that I don't even listen to the man, yet you try to demean my statements instead of providing facts to back up your side? My link was to an AP article, not Limbaugh's website.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,54610,00.html
Check out the glitterati who have shown up at congressional hearings recently: Julia Roberts. Christie Brinkley. Michael J. Fox. Kevin Richardson of the Backstreet Boys.
It's the Backstreet Boy that has Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, fuming. Richardson was scheduled to appear Thursday before a Senate Environment and Public Works subcommittee. He was to testify on mountaintop removal mining, a controversial practice in which the top of a ridge or mountain is sheared off to expose a coal seam, pushing dirt and rock into nearby valleys and waterways.
"This is the best you can come up with?"
Off the top of my head. I think it suffices. You did little but answer a few of my question, with a question.
"I have stated many times that I don't even listen to the man, yet you try to demean my statements instead of providing facts to back up your side?"
What facts do you think I need to bolster my argument? I agree, those are high salaries. I gave what I thought might be a few reasons. You called them extortionists. Said they were sqandering the money. Living high off the hog at the expense of the members.
You provide some evidence. You made the charge.
Take down the logo from EIB and quit giving me every reason to believe you do listen to him (because you totally borrow his rhetoric) and maybe I'll stop.
BTW: Welcome back.
Rick,
I'm not speaking for Dan but don't you think it's a bit unfair to automatically lump his views in with Rush's. He's a conservative so he's bound to have some of the same views of conservatives who don't listen to his show. Does that mean it's "his" rhetroic ? So everytime you take a liberal stance we should tell you to quit using Molly Ivins material or rhetoric? You might have some of the exact same ideology as her or other liberal commentators it doesn't mean that you are simply repeating her or anyone else, it's simply because on many issues you're coming from a similar view.
I want to state here and now that I don't listen to Rush and never have.
Can you tell, Rick?
I do listen. And I live in fear that Rushisms are going to start sneaking into my posts.
I figure I need to know what people I disagree with are thinking.
It's never very much on that show.
BWaaaaaahahahahah!
I'd probably listen if I could get AM on my radio at work.
"OSAMA PUT LSD IN MY COCA-COLA" RAG
Spider monkeys swinging from the chandeliers.
Dumbo flying through my bedroom with his great big ears.
Two belly dancers wiggling and jiggling their rears.
A picture on the mantle crying technicolor tears.
Oh, oh, Osama, you really f - - - - - - me up good!
Jimmy Hoffa's in the closet pretty much decomposed.
Laughing how Duarante was really big-nosed.
I'm open to suggestions but a sign reads "closed".
If it was beer that I was drinkin' I would really be hosed.
Oh, oh, oh, Osama, you really f - - - - - - me up good!
Custer's in the kitchen with an arrow in his back.
There's an eyeball in the wall peering through a crack.
Belly dancer number one's got a shimmy-shakin' stack.
But I checked inside my pants and there's one thing that I lack.
Oh, oh, oh, oh, Osama, you really f- - - - - - me up good!
Rick and Fly, (Sounds like a comedy duo, LOL)
I do not follow a single person or group of people. I am a free thinker with my own ideas. If someone makes a claim that catches my attention, I look into it further for what the truth is before making my own mind up on the subject. For the most part, I tend to lean toward the conservative side of things, but not always.
I have stated before that I think that the party system (Dems, Reps, etc.) should be abolished and we can actually pick a representative based on their thoughts and abilities as apposed to what party they are from as many now do. I feel that our country would be better off without the "get the other party" mentality that seems to come from most politicians in our country.
As an example, look at how many Democrats followed the talking points about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" that was out to "get" the Clinton's. And yes, Rick, I am sure that you can show me how Rush and some other Republicans are anti-anything that is Democrat.
There is good and bad in any party, just like there is good and bad in any candidate. I do not think that Daschle or Bush are perfect, however, I do find myself siding with Bush more than Daschle.
As for living high off the hog, go to the U. S. Dept. of Laborwebsite and search for officers of the unions making more than $100,000 and you get a list of more than 500 individuals. So many that it asks you to "refine your search". If you do this you will find that people like John Jurik of the AUTO WORKERS AFL-CIO made over $1,000,000 in 2000, Dick Walsh of the CARPENTERS IND made $666,099 (he is a trustee), Catherine Reed of STEELWORKERS AFL-CIO made $887,628 (she is a treasurer), etc. If these are not the rich people that Daschle and others have been talking about, then who is?
And yes, I call them extortionist. I would also call an employer who says that I must give them part of my pay for the privilege of working for the company an extortionist as well. I also call senators and representatives who threaten me with jail time if I refuse to pay my taxes so they can spend it on things not listed in the constitution extortionist as well.
By the way, what is EIB? I will see what I can do about the logo since it is a little outdated. How about this one?
Oh, it is good to be back and I am glad to see you are still here.