Mayor Mike's Bad Analogy

If you're in your apartment and some emotionally disturbed person is banging on the door screaming, 'I'm gonna come through this door and kill you,' do you want us to respond with one police officer, which is proportional, or with all the resources at our command?

I don't know about you guys, but if one crazy man that poses no perceivable threat is outside my appartment screaming that he is going to kill me, I really think that one officer would do. Heck, even if he is a threat to me, I think the full force of the New York City Police Department is probably not necessary. I mean, they are among the best trained cops in the world, and I'm guessing that it really only takes one regularly armed NYPD officer to stop a crazy man. It would just be weird if the bomb dogs and armored vehicles and SWAT units came in that situation, that is all I am saying. All I'm saying is that the NYPD has some heavy weaponry. Probably, you want to stop a crazy man with a nightstick, maybe some bullets if there is imminent danger. The full resources of the NYPS, that is, blowing up the building the crazy man is inside of in order to kill him part would seem, well, excessive.

Some Decent News Reporting and Stupid Zionist Argument #726: Every Other Country Would Do the Same

First off: Holy crap! That was a real interview! It wasn't full of softballs, nor was it full of gotchya bullshit questions. It was respectful, yet pressing. Gillerman got to speak and express his opinions, yet was not allowed to assert blatent falsehoods unchallenges. US media, please note. This is how you do an interview.

Now then, on to more important things. As Israel (aided and abetted by, among others, the U.S., Egypt, and Fatah) continues killing hundreds of Palestinians for no discernible reason, Israel has launched a full out international media blitz intent on avoiding a repeat of Lebanon, where they only killed 1,200 people and injured another 5000 (most of whom were civilians, even if you go by Israel's numbers) before international pressure forced them to back down.

So far, it seems that their main line of argumentation is that any other country faced with a similar situation would react the same way. Discounting that, as the Al-Jazeera reporter points out, there are few comparable situations, we in fact have several situations that occurred very recently with which to compare this with.

Case 1) India. In India, a terrorist group with ties to Pakistan recently launched terrorist attacks that resulted in the deaths of 170 people, and the injury of scores more. Moreover, they specifically targeted British and American tourists, a clear act of war. Despite this, neither India, the U.S., nor Great Britain have taken military action against Pakistan or Lashka-e-Toibar, and have in fact worked closely in order to acoid military escalation.

Case 2) U.S. military interventions. Currently, the U.S. is involved in military escapades in both Iraq and Afghanistan. In both situations, the U.S. has accused a neighboring country of cross-border interventions: in the case of Iraq, the U.S. accuses Iran of supporting and arming militants, and in Afghanistan, the U.S. has accused Pakistan of not doing enough to prevent Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants. The U.S. has taken no action against Iran. In Afghanistan, the U.S. has come under heavy pressure for violating Pakistani sovereignty and for causing excessive civilian casualties. Still, the level of U.S. bombing in Pakistan and the resulting number of civilian casualties, certainly does not amount to anything close to what Israel has done in 72 hours. And the threat posed by the targeted militants is certainly far greater.

It seems the far easier comparisons to make are of places like Bosnia/Kosovo, Sudan/Dafur, Turkey/PKK, etc. All of these are places where the territory in question is controlled by another, in which excessive force was used, and which were harshly condemned by the international community. (Note: I am not trying to claim that these are equivalent situations. Each has their own unique circumstances and histories and must be understood as such, but they no doubt make a better comparative case than "what if the US was being bombed by Canada" type arguments)

So, let's close with the second decent interview I have seen since this whole thing started. Here's Serge Brzezinski, schooling Joe Scarborough. Interviewees on American News TV: please note how Brzezinski keeps a calm cool demeanor and carefuly explains his position using factual, not bizarrely hypothetical, arguments.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Brilliant! How did we not think of this strategy sooner?!

The BBC has the future leaders of Israel's foolproof scheme for winning the War on Terrorism in their country:

Israeli leaders 'to topple Hamas'

Damn. Wy didn;t anyone think of that before. Just topple them. So Brilliant. And I thought our politics were screwy.

I screaming in Internet Time to Fire Headline Writer: Me

<--Crazy Man, or just crazy headline? Both, as it turns out.

Headlines are important. They allow the reader to easily scan the newspaper, or internets, to decide whether a story is worth reading, or whether you will spend the next 20 minutes finding out what Angelina Jolie said.

Now I am not one to normally pick on the blogosphere, but HuffingtonPost is becoming a respected source of political information. So imagine my reaction when, skimming their headlines, I should run across this gem:

George Tenet Screamed About Jews In Saudi Prince's Pool: Book

Qua? What the heck was Tenet doing in teh Saudi Prince's Pool. And what does "Book" have to do with anything?

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg offers an interesting excerpt from "A World Of Trouble," a forthcoming book by Patrick Tyler on the White House and the Middle East. In this scene, CIA director George Tenet, drunk on scotch at Saudi Prince Bandar's pool, rants about Bush administration "Jews" who are "setting me up" to take the fall for the false WMD claims

Maybe they should hire some NYPost headline writers

Damn. Bush can move!

Look at him duck those shoes!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7782422.stm

Some days, I think I'm going to miss that guy.

EDIT: Here is the YouTube:

One last goodbye to Ted Stevens

The AP, CNN, and NYTimes have all called Alaska's Senate seat for Mark Begich, meaning that the single worst Senator in the country, Ted Stevens, is going to be a private citizen as of Jan. 1st. But let us not forget what we have lost:


Or if you prefer your news Stewart-style:


Adieu Stevens. You will be missed.

As for you Mark Begich: well, you're the first Democratic senator from Alaska since Mike Gravel. That's some mighty big shoes to fill. I mean, the guy did leak the Pentagon Papers and all, but that's not what I'm talking about. If history is any guids, in 30 years Mark Begich will be doing this:

Caption this photo