Gabby Gifford (AZ rep) shot

[Phox]

No. 

Look, I'm obviously not a big Rush Limbaugh fan.  But the best thing to do is just let it be and not draw attention to it.  It's just another distraction AND it gives that fat attention whore more attention.  He'd wallow in that shit for days. 

He's an irrelevant shit-head, who cares. 

Irrelevant? Try telling that to about half the people 'round these parts.

Okay, well he should be irrelevant. 

Oh, yes, we are in complete agreement there. But give a monkey a microphone....

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm talking about the actual Congressmen.  The GOP don't think twice when it comes to legislating based upon their ideology.  They don't care if the people like it or not.  It's full steam ahead.  It's the Democrats who get all in a bunch and worry about consensus and compromise and reaching across the aisle.  Those things are good virtues, but I think sometimes they get a little OCD about it and then we get bullshit like the weak-ass HCR law.  And that started in a compromise position. 

The Patriot Act didn't start that way.  They rammed that sucker through.   

In what way are Republican Congressmen not pudgy suburban guys who drive humvees, dress in camo, and run around in the woods embarrassingly brandishing guns they don't know how to use well?

[Adios]

*coughDICKCHENYcough*

[AFK]

We're talking apples and oranges here.  I'm talking strictly about political wimpy-ness.  I'm not talking about character.  I mean, they're mostly all phony clowns on either side, that's part of being a politician in America.  My commentary is strictly about how they legislate.  

[Disco Pickle]

I'm talking about the actual Congressmen.  The GOP don't think twice when it comes to legislating based upon their ideology.  They don't care if the people like it or not.  It's full steam ahead.  It's the Democrats who get all in a bunch and worry about consensus and compromise and reaching across the aisle.  Those things are good virtues, but I think sometimes they get a little OCD about it and then we get bullshit like the weak-ass HCR law.  And that started in a compromise position.  

The Patriot Act didn't start that way.  They rammed that sucker through.  

and it was written by a democrat.  there is no choice, only the illusion of choice.

[edit] the reauthorization bill of 2006 was

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

We're talking apples and oranges here.  I'm talking strictly about political wimpy-ness.  I'm not talking about character.  I mean, they're mostly all phony clowns on either side, that's part of being a politician in America.  My commentary is strictly about how they legislate.  

Oh. You were comparing them to armies of Uruks and Orcs. I guess the metaphor fell apart.

[AFK]

Wasn't really a metaphor, was mostly pointing out that in this scenario they really aren't on the good guys team. 

[Cain]

I'm talking about the actual Congressmen.  The GOP don't think twice when it comes to legislating based upon their ideology.  They don't care if the people like it or not.  It's full steam ahead.  It's the Democrats who get all in a bunch and worry about consensus and compromise and reaching across the aisle.  Those things are good virtues, but I think sometimes they get a little OCD about it and then we get bullshit like the weak-ass HCR law.  And that started in a compromise position. 

The Patriot Act didn't start that way.  They rammed that sucker through.   

Actually, no.

The Democrats are also voting based on ideology.  That ideology involves fucking every American under a certain wage level for all their productive worth.  The hand-wringing etc is the propaganda, for their supporters.

Alan Grayson's former senior policy advisor explains this quite well:

Since the 1970s, Democratic elites have focused on breaking public sector unions and financializing the economy. Carter, not Reagan, started the defense build-up. Carter, not Reagan, lifted usury caps. Carter, not Reagan, first cut capital gains taxes. Clinton, not Bush, passed NAFTA. It isn't the base of the Democratic party that did this, but then, voters in America have never had a lot of power because they are too disorganized. And there wasn't a substantial grassroots movement to challenge this, either.

Obama continues this trend. It isn't that he's not fighting, he fights like hell for what he wants. He whipped incredibly aggressively for TARP, he has passed emergency war funding (breaking a campaign promise) several times, and nearly broke the arms of feckless liberals in the process. I mean, when Bernie Sanders did the filiBernie, Obama flirted with Bernie's potential 2012 GOP challenger. Obama just wants policies that cement the status of a aristocratic class, with crumbs for everyone else (Republican elites disagree in that they hate anyone but elites getting crumbs). And he will fight for them.

There is simply no basis for arguing that Democratic elites are pursuing poor strategy anymore. They are achieving an enormous amount of leverage within the party. Consider the following. Despite Obama violating every core tenet of what might have been considered the Democratic Party platform, from supporting foreclosures to destroying civil liberties to torturing political dissidents to wrecking unions, Obama has no viable primary challenger. Moreover, no Senate Democratic incumbent lost a primary challenge in 2010, despite a horrible governing posture. Now THAT is a successful strategy, it minimized the losses of the Democratic elite and kept them firmly in control of the party. Thus, the political debate remains confined to what neoliberals want to talk about. It's a good strategy, it's just you are the one the strategy is being played on.

A lot of people think that Obama is a bad poker player, but they miss the point. He's not playing with his money, he's playing with YOUR money. You are the weak hand at the table, he's colluding with the other players.

If you don't know who is the sucker in any given poker game, it's you.

[Cain]

Also, I'm going to think about this for a while

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters.

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do.  And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.

    * G2geek's diary :: ::
*

Update: the mechanism spelled out.

(This update is to resolve some ambiguity.) 

The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist.  The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Here's the mechanism spelled out concisely:

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts. 

One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act.   While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. "given the provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such"), the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet). 

The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do."

The lone wolf who was the "missile" gets captured and sentenced to life in prison, while the stochastic terrorist keeps his prime time slot and goes on to incite more lone wolves.   

Further, the stochastic terrorist may be acting either negligently or deliberately, or may be in complete denial of their impact, just like a drunk driver who runs over a pedestrian without even realizing it. 

Finally, there is no conspiracy here: merely the twisted acts of individuals who are promoting extremism, who get access to national media in which to do it, and the rest follows naturally just as an increase in violent storms follows from an increase in average global temperature. 

There is actually some research on the replication of terrorist attacks and memetics which would seem to support this.  It's complex though.

[LMNO]

Argh.  Cain did it again.


As a follow up, my loose grasp on Baseyan reasoning would seem to support the idea of Stochastic terrorism.

[Cain]

It's exactly Al-Qaeda Core's strategy, that.

It's also the reason Anwar al-Walaki is currently being targeted for assassination by the CIA.

I also believe that in the case of several genocides in developing states, this form of terrorism may have helped inspire attacks (Rwanda, the Haiti uprisings etc).

At the same time though, I think it needs to be fleshed out.

[Phox]

Also, I'm going to think about this for a while

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1/10/934890/-Stochastic-Terrorism:-Triggering-the-shooters.

Stochastic terrorism is the use of mass communications to stir up random lone wolves to carry out violent or terrorist acts that are statistically predictable but individually unpredictable.

This is what occurs when Bin Laden releases a video that stirs random extremists halfway around the globe to commit a bombing or shooting.

This is also the term for what Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity, and others do.  And this is what led directly and predictably to a number of cases of ideologically-motivated murder similar to the Tucson shootings.

    * G2geek's diary :: ::
*

Update: the mechanism spelled out.

(This update is to resolve some ambiguity.) 

The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the "missile" set in motion by the stochastic terrorist.  The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those "missiles" in motion.

Here's the mechanism spelled out concisely:

The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media to broadcast memes that incite unstable people to commit violent acts. 

One or more unstable people responds to the incitement by becoming a lone wolf and committing a violent act.   While their action may have been statistically predictable (e.g. "given the provocation, someone will probably do such-and-such"), the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet). 

The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: "Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I'm not responsible for what people in my audience do."

The lone wolf who was the "missile" gets captured and sentenced to life in prison, while the stochastic terrorist keeps his prime time slot and goes on to incite more lone wolves.   

Further, the stochastic terrorist may be acting either negligently or deliberately, or may be in complete denial of their impact, just like a drunk driver who runs over a pedestrian without even realizing it. 

Finally, there is no conspiracy here: merely the twisted acts of individuals who are promoting extremism, who get access to national media in which to do it, and the rest follows naturally just as an increase in violent storms follows from an increase in average global temperature. 

There is actually some research on the replication of terrorist attacks and memetics which would seem to support this.  It's complex though.

Ofuk.  

[Adios]

It's exactly Al-Qaeda Core's strategy, that.

It's also the reason Anwar al-Walaki is currently being targeted for assassination by the CIA.

I also believe that in the case of several genocides in developing states, this form of terrorism may have helped inspire attacks (Rwanda, the Haiti uprisings etc).

At the same time though, I think it needs to be fleshed out.

Suicide bombers at first blush also fit the missile definition.

[BadBeast]

It's exactly Al-Qaeda Core's strategy, that.

It's also the reason Anwar al-Walaki is currently being targeted for assassination by the CIA.

I also believe that in the case of several genocides in developing states, this form of terrorism may have helped inspire attacks (Rwanda, the Haiti uprisings etc).

At the same time though, I think it needs to be fleshed out.

Suicide bombers at first blush also fit the missile definition.

They're not really Suicide Bombers. They're Homicide Bombers. A Suicide Bomber would go out into the Desert somewhere, and just blow himself up. He wouldn't need a cause any more than any other Suicide.

But if he did it in protest, all he has to do, is say so in his Note. Then he's a Suicide Bomber with a cause.  (But still not needing to blow anyone else but himself up)

Strapping a bomb to yourself, then going to town and blowing as many other people up as you can, is something other than  Suicide. Spree killers? Self inclusive spree killers? Explosive Martyrists? But not "suicide". Suicide should be a solitary and self contemplative event. Like masturbation. It shouldn't have anyone else involved in it. Not even as witnesses. If witnesses are tricked into being present, (In either scenario) then you're doing it for attention. Making you at the very least, an exhibitionist. And exhibitionists don't want to die, not while there is anyone left alive that can be their audience.

[Adios]

It's exactly Al-Qaeda Core's strategy, that.

It's also the reason Anwar al-Walaki is currently being targeted for assassination by the CIA.

I also believe that in the case of several genocides in developing states, this form of terrorism may have helped inspire attacks (Rwanda, the Haiti uprisings etc).

At the same time though, I think it needs to be fleshed out.

Suicide bombers at first blush also fit the missile definition.

They're not really Suicide Bombers. They're Homicide Bombers. A Suicide Bomber would go out into the Desert somewhere, and just blow himself up. He wouldn't need a cause any more than any other Suicide.

But if he did it in protest, all he has to do, is say so in his Note. Then he's a Suicide Bomber with a cause.  (But still not needing to blow anyone else but himself up)

Strapping a bomb to yourself, then going to town and blowing as many other people up as you can, is something other than  Suicide. Spree killers? Self inclusive spree killers? Explosive Martyrists? But not "suicide". Suicide should be a solitary and self contemplative event. Like masturbation. It shouldn't have anyone else involved in it. Not even as witnesses. If witnesses are tricked into being present, (In either scenario) then you're doing it for attention. Making you at the very least, an exhibitionist. And exhibitionists don't want to die, not while there is anyone left alive that can be their audience.

going to my room now.