Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Isn't It About Time?

I find George neither "disrespectable" (my spell checker does not like this word!) nor ludicrous.

What George IS really good at is staking out extreme fringe positions in order to make a point which is generally more toward the center. It is a very effective strategy, as witnessed by the fact that many of those who disagree quickly reduce their arguments from attacks on his positions to attacks on the poster.

The minute they do this of course, they expose the weakness of their counter argument.

Bravo!

Steve,

I often disagree with George but do not recall ever attacking him personally. I believe the arguments I make are a bit more thoughtful than that. As to his so-called strategy, there is nothing middle of the road about George. He cannot be pigeon-holed as liberal or conservative or left or right as his opinions can be from either side of the spectrum depending on the issue. That is because he thinks the issues through for himself. The kind of independent thinking that the world could use more of. His views are, however, often extreme and, I believe, genuinely so.

As to your point about exposing our counter-arguments, mostly he just does not address them and simply throws up different arguments in their place. Arguing with George is like returning a different ping pong ball with each serve. Sometimes several at once. But the same argument never comes back unless it is after several (quite different) others and, even then, never gets around to addressing your counter-arguments.

<sigh>

this thread is like a grisly accident: you don't want to look, but you can't help yourself.

i think frank needs to open yet another section at piano world called "the barroom," where those who like their exchanges bare-knuckled or fired from twenty paces at high noon can swagger it out without the rest of us getting lured in by ambiguous thread names.

LOL,
Pique, So true, however it's good to see you are still around.

"this thread is like a grisly accident: you don't want to look, but you can't help yourself."

No, Pique - I disagree. I think, for the most part, people are being civil and keeping a sense of humor in this thread. Jim does seem to be ticked off at women (or at least at some woman in his past/present), and I never know WHAT to expect when I read lb's posts, or for that matter, George's - but at least it's interesting. (and believe me, with all this sorting through junk I am doing at the moment, I am DESPERATE for "interesting" ) Keep it up, all!

OK, armchair quaterbacks. Define the purpose of the FBI.

Are they a law enforcement agency? Law enforcement generally only acts after the crime, most law enforcement is not pro-active, but reactive.

Are they a drug enforcement agency?

Should they be tasked with the mission of combatting organized crime?

Are they an intelligence gathering agency?

Should they help local law enforcement with their crime lab or expertise to solve the seemingly un-solvable crimes?

Should they concentrate on interstate crime only?

Are they a national SWAT anti-terrorism force?

I am somewhat concerned that we as a nation are going to pull 500 federal cops off of the beat, and concentrate their efforts on pre-empting terrorism. I would prefer to give that job to the CIA and the NSA, who are better at intelligence gathering intelligence, anyway.

With the added bonus that the CIA guys are more experienced at "wetworks". OK, George, I admit I was just funnin' on the last statement.

But what should be the role of the modern day FBI?

In the past, we have been reluctant to allow the CIA to operate inside our borders as we did not want to see the same tactics they used overseas to be applied to our own citizenry. However, the CIA has been so sanitized over the years that not only have they lost effectiveness at overseas intelligence gathering but they would probably fit in at any Sunday school.

The FBI, on the other hand, with its HRT unit has already given us Waco and Ruby Ridge and has become far more efficient at abusing our citizens and covering up afterward so that I doubt that you could really tell the difference if they are set loose to conduct anti-terrorism.

Yes there is a lot of work to be done and I am not sure that redefining the roles of these agencies is the answer.

One of the problems that has led to the current fiasco in intelligence is that the FBI is reluctant to share information with the CIA for fear that the CIA will embargo it and render it impossible to use in court. The FBI's primary mission, after all as Jolly stated, is law enforcement.

The CIA is reluctant to share information with the FBI for fear that it will become public in the course of court room testimony and compromise sources and methods.

There has to be a way to allow intelligence gathering on shore without the bueaucratic turf battles and still maintain our freedom.

Here is one idea

LOL

well, then, jodi, my friend, we'll have to agree to disagree. i don't see anything civil about making ad hominem attacks, in the vein of "people like you," etc. to me, that is when it turns ugly. when i read that stuff, i just want to take a shower. ugh.

but then, we all know that i'm one of those faint-hearted milquetoasts who is oh, too sensitive!

all in all, i think george held up admirably, with grace and good humor, but he deserves better.

Does George deserve better? Do any of us?

Civility is a matter of perception. What might constitute civil behavior or wording for one person may not be the same for the next.

I don't see overt name calling. I don't see profanity. I don't see statements about one's lineage or about their Mother. This is pablum compared to a good rmmper room discussion.

George knows exactly what he is doing. He walks in, swings a allegorical dead cat in a crowded room, and waits for the fun to start. Nobody holds a gun to his head to make him post his thoughts or holds a gun to mine to elicit a response.

Always good to see you back, pique. Wade in whenever you want.

But these are political discussions.

And politics ain't beanbag!

An excellent question, and one that allows me to reply to two threads in one post!

I recently finished reading "The Arms of Krupp", the story of the Krupp steel family of Germany. It deals largely with Krupp's function as an arms manufacturer from the times of the early steel cannons and on through WW11.

In it, the author points out that whenever there is a change in the nature of warfare, the group that is in power at the time of the change will be thrown from power shortly thereafter. He offers as reason the fact that military complexes become rooted in doing things the way they have always done them, and are unable to change when the nature of war changes. It has happend over and over throughout history.

I believe we are seeing that now, and the signs (Korea, Viet Nam, Iran) have been there for some time. The US has been caught flatfooted by the recent to shift to terrorism as warfare, and if some major changes are not made - quickly - this could be the dawn of a whole new age.

Not a vision I care to contemplate.

Terrorists. This latest style of warfare is so foreign to our military that they can not even declare it as a war. They have no clue how to fight it, and if the goal was to capture the leader, they have failed. Small scattered bands of terrorists hide out in caves, and the best solution they can come up with is bombers - WW2 techonology trying to adapt to Y2K warfare. It's not going to work, especially on terrorists located on our home soil.

But what will work? How will the US military adapt quickly enough to combat this latest threat?

Perhaps the FBI will be the solution, if it can be reorganized, staffed, trained and deployed quickly enough. If not the FBI, than some other organization. Perhaps a new style of organization altogether. Can it be done?

I sure hope so, because you can not stop a suicide bomber with an aircraft carrier.

An excellent point, Steve.

There is change afoot. Can we adapt quickly enough? Let's pray to God we can. Because your point is well taken, we will not be successful if we do not. One of the reasons we lost in Viet Nam was because we had no idea how to fight the type of war the Vietnamese forced us to fight.

And we will lose in this one as well, if we allow the dinosaurs to argue that their way worked in the past so it will work now.

Jody
I have been married for 38 years. My wife thinks just like you, she doesn't know what I will say or do next.

Pique
Good to see you back. Just as the body needs all its components, like the appendix and tonsils, to function properly the forum needs people like you.

George
We didn't lose the Vietnam War in Vietnam, we lost it at home. We were fighting a war on two fronts and didn't realize it. We are still engaged in that second front war and if the opposing forces were acknowledged you would have the rank of at least El Capitan :p

lb

Steve,

There are many in our Defense Department who are keenly aware of the point you are making. As we speak, there is a struggle underway the outcome of which will determine how we structure our forces for the new types of conflicts we are, even now, facing. One example of this struggle is the Crusader cannon which the civilian leadership wants to kill and the Army brass, as well as certain members of Congress from Oklahoma, are trying desparately to save. I hope the civilian leadership wins on this one because the Crusader is exactly the type of outmoded weapon system we could do without. I am confident that our military will adapt itself to this new type of warfare if the old guard inertia can be overcome and Congress can keep their pork barrell mitts out of it.