Comments on: Let Palin be Palin

By: Tom

Tom — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:03:11 +0000

You see Jamie, you said something containing something less-than-pure adulation for President Bush. That makes you a liberal. Maybe a terrorist, too.

Seriously, though, there’s been at least one strain of thought in neoconservative circles that has revolved around the need to stay on offense to avoid further reductions in liberties at home. A society as open as ours will be significantly less free if there’s a constant threat of terrorism here, so better to have the fight somewhere else and, hopefully, disrupt their underlying support structure. But at least to spare the homeland from much of the terrorist threat.

I’m sympathetic to that myself, with caveats. Still, if that jerk’s ability to heckle Gov. Palin is ever curtailed, it won’t be because of anything bin Laden did.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 13:29:02 +0000

“Terrorist attacks = BUSH ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OMG WTF.”

Interesting – I don’t recall anyone at this site ever saying this.

By: bkw

bkw — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 06:36:31 +0000

No terrorist attacks = unreasonable encroachment on our rights, stupid homeland security, idiot security measures.

Terrorist attacks = BUSH ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL OMG WTF.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 03:12:51 +0000

Yes but I think you may be confusing causation with correlation, Apollo.

By: Apollo

Apollo — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:41:41 +0000

There are two types of responses to terrorist threats that reduce freedom. The first is official: goofy airport security, no umbrellas in stadiums, etc. Those are actually pretty minor inconveniences. The second kind of response is where private actors change their behavior to reduce their exposure. Shortly after 9/11, I was supposed to attend a conference in some skyscraper in a big city, but it was then moved to a sprawling resort in the desert out of security concerns. That sort of thing just doesn’t happen anymore.

Overall, I’d say it’s worked out pretty well. If you were to examine the overall level of lost freedom, as a result of the terrorist threat, it’s pretty small. And things are much better than most people predicted back in 2001-02. I think that’s because we’ve been constantly fighting elsewhere, and have thus encouraged the terrorists to do the same.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 01:25:29 +0000

“Seriously, though, there’s been at least one strain of thought in neoconservative circles that has revolved around the need to stay on offense to avoid further reductions in liberties at home.”

And how’s that worked out for us? As far as I know there is a constant terrorist threat here. Isn’t that why I have to get to the airport 3 hours early, take off my shoes in the security line, can’t bring any liquids on the plane etc etc etc. That’s a great theory you got there that doesn’t really seem to be put into practice.

By: Apollo

Apollo — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:15:19 +0000

Come on, Tom, this was discussed conclusively back in 2004. “Better they fight in Baghdad and not Boston,” remember? Tikrit, not Toledo. Mosul, not Missoula.

Seriously, though, there’s been at least one strain of thought in neoconservative circles that has revolved around the need to stay on offense to avoid further reductions in liberties at home. A society as open as ours will be significantly less free if there’s a constant threat of terrorism here, so better to have the fight somewhere else and, hopefully, disrupt their underlying support structure. But at least to spare the homeland from much of the terrorist threat.

It’s an argument that I’ve always bought in to.

By: Tom

Tom — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:09:41 +0000

It’s a solid comeback

Is it? Seriously, how is Track’s service affecting that man’s civil liberties, one way or another?