« First « Previous Comments 89 - 109 of 109 Search these comments
Headset, the US has a lot of nukes. I believe there is a finite probability of one these accidentally dropped on an American city. Remember the incident last year?
And I think that probability is higher than Pakistan launching a nuclear missile onto an American city.
Srirangopalan,
Have no fear of either any accidental droppings or Pakistan missiles.
The incident you are refering to was that a nuke was transported without the fissionable material removed. Athough that was a serious breach that will get a few fired, there was no danger of an inadvertant blast. To set off a nuke, one must go through a deliberate procedure including codes. These codes are not even known to the aircrews until after launch of the plane to the target. Since the crew was merely transporting the weapon, there would have been no cert done or codes given. Nukes do not detonate on impact like nitroglyceryn.
Pakistan is years away from having a missile capable of hitting the US whether land or sub based. Even so, any nation that "No-Donged" any part of the US would be commiting suicide.
speedingpullet Says:
any idea why the Pakistani govt is now insisting that Benazir Bhutto died by hitting her head on the clip that held the sun roof in place?
The technical term is a "cover-up".
I read a translation of Bhutto's last speech - about an hour before she got shot. Mostly rhetoric, but the recurring theme was an appeal to the public to show the military that Pakistanis can run their own government and don't need the army to do it for them. Given the country's history this is mostly wishful thinking, but you can't say crap like that in a dictatorship and expect to be left in peace, I guess...
sriramgopalan Says:
Americans are not crazy or stupid. They are gullible because there is a systematic ignorance about foreign policy and world culture over here.
That may be true of Joe and Jane Sixpack, but the policy makers aren't so ignorant. In addition to detailed knowledge of Musharaf's shady past, they also know Musharaf has stonewalled consistently in the WoT, and has moved aggressively to protect people like Omar Shaikh and Dr. Khan, who are key to understanding Pakistan's hand in terrorism and proliferation respectively.
It boggles my mind that policy makers are still so short-sighted that they choose to engage with double-dealing crooks like this. They don't seem to have learned anything from the blowback of past dealings with Pakistani dictators.
OO Says:
By trustworthy I don’t mean that they like the US geniunely, I mean they are steady, capable individuals who make rational decisions,
That is exactly the problem - General Musharaf's track record hardly seems to qualify him on those grounds. IIRC, he was the idiot who destroyed a peace process with India by pushing the Pakistani army across the Indian border into Kashmir while his own Prime Minister was trying to work out a peace deal. After getting their nuts caught nicely in the Indian wringer, the Clinton administration had to intervene to prevent nuclear war.
His War on Terror credentials are also highly suspect - a few years from now, we will find out he was running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.
Not exactly the kind of loose nut you want on your side.
Not exactly the kind of loose nut you want on your side.
True, but who else could they work with concerning Pakistan? Perhaps they were dealing with him and hoping for Bhutto.
Musharaff is no worse than Zia-Ul Haq, the military dictator in the 70s and 80s. In fact, he was better because he pretty much allowed the press to be free, which is very rare for any dictatorship.
But America loved Zia and showered him with money and arms. Some of it went where intended (Afghanistan, where the Taliban "freedom fighters" were battling the evil commies along with Rambo) but most of it went to fund terrorists in India (Punjab and later, Kashmir)
The quality of the man never mattered to the foreign office mandarins.
Also, I don't believe that policy makers are all that much smarter and knowledgeable. At least based on evidence of American foreign policy in the last 50 years or so, it doesn't appear so.
And I know the media is pretty beatifying Bhutto right now, but her record is far from impressive. She was the prime minister of Pakistan twice before and both terms ended badly. And if I am not mistaken, there are term limits in Pakistan too.
What is this whole "someone to work with" business? Whoever comes to power, work with them. And what exactly needs to be worked with between USA and Pakistan, other than trade?
Whoever comes to power, work with them. And what exactly needs to be worked with between USA and Pakistan, other than trade?
Maybe buyers ARE rediscovering math
http://realestate.msn.com/Buying/Article_wsj.aspx?cp-documentid=5458941>1=10729
The article says builders like Pulte and Lennar are now building smaller sized homes. Interesting use of the term "McMansion." Wasn't that term coined by somebody on this blog?
A bit OT, but's here's an interesting combination of simultaneous breakthrough announcements.
Cheaper solar cells (under $1/watt)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/29/solarpower.renewableenergy
Plus more efficient batteries
http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/nanowire-010908.html
There's a couple of million square miles of nice flat CHEAP land in Australia that would be very suitable for energy "farming" if both of those come through.
Amazingly enough "McMansion" isn't in the Patrick Glossary, except as an explanation of "McAlbatross".
Chindians are not to blame! Look at this transaction by San Jose Sharks defenseman Craig Rivet.
Monte Sereno
----------------
18485 Withey Road $4,800,000, 697 SF, 1 BR, Blaettler Construction to C. & K. Rivet; 2004:$1,920,000
cb, that must be a typo; someone would need to have taken several severe blows to the head to pay that much for a 1 bedroom. Oh... wait... nm.
It is not a typo, it is a brand new home expanded on the original lot, and the new home details were not recorded yet. I have seen quite a few new homes recorded as such.
The flipper made out, the original house was 697 sq ft., a builder bought it for under 2M and built a 5000 sq. ft house and sold it to Craig Rivet for 4.8M. I guess he did take too many blows to the head. Incidentally, his contract with the Sharks is 4 year - 14 million.
DennisN - I have seen the term "mcMansion" being used without irony* lately.
*Irony is of course illegal in the US as per the latest Patriot Act and the US educational system....
Craig Rivet's piano recital gave rise to praise for Craig's Liszt, which mushroomed from Rivet's hammerklavier.
HeadSet Says:
Interesting use of the term “McMansion.†Wasn’t that term coined by somebody on this blog?
I doubt it - I first heard the term McMansion with reference to houses built somewhere in Texas, by Dell employees who had stock-options money to burn. This was way back in the mid- to late-nineties.
I think I may have seen it first on Kuntsler's site, but may have seen it on www.urbansurvival.com or one of the other "Depression's coming" sites.
It's been around several years. It's becoming a standard term rather than a derisive term now.
I can just see some moron bragging about his McMansion, with the obligatory columns in front of course!
« First « Previous Comments 89 - 109 of 109 Search these comments
Should there be a national math test required for those who want to borrow money?
Apparently, millions of people cannot multiply an amount of money by a percentage interest rate to get a yearly interest payment. They are probably even further removed from understanding that they also have to pay back the principal over the life of the loan.
A simple one-page arithmetic test would do wonders in cutting down claims of exploitation by lenders.
The next step would be a vocabulary test, starting the the words "fixed" and "adjustable"...
Patrick