Berg
-
Posts
207 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Berg
-
-
God must have helped him.
-
-
Does that include the people banned or put on involuntary hiatus for such disagreements? Does that include the people from whom I get PM's who never post here or used to but stopped because of that kind of thing?
I realize that you, AD and KRC have never, ever been wrong, so I won't suggest even the possibility. I do get that kind of response from you three along with wacka, RK and the like but I somehow I don't see that as an indicator of my partisanship.
Not that I don't enjoy indulging your need to discuss me but is there any chance you have an opinion on Buckley's column we can discuss?
No one has ever been banned for their stance on any issue or party affiliation. To claim otherwise is whining, plain and simple. One only needs to see a list of those banned to debunk your hypothesis.
-
We don't have that luxury, as a lot of what we produce becomes the reference for other documents somewhere else. So - everything HAS to be apportioned so it can get lifted piece by piece for whatever someone else is writing. As we both know, 99% of most "TS" documents are not TS. Nor are secret all secret. I'm working on something right now that is 99% nothing, but 2 or 3 sentences screw up the works.
Curiosity question. What do you do when working with something "class"
\\rel\\"x" and something else "class"\\rel\\ "y" as references to produce something else, when the original x stuff is not releasable to y and vice versa? I've never figured it out, so I generally blow off those taskers.
Hmmm. I don't think I've ever run across that situation. I might, however, in my new reserve job. Maybe that's because the releasability is inherent in the "compartment", and I've not handled other than SCI for TS. I don't know, I'm just guessing. Don't you have an SSO or ISSM or some other security goober who would get off on answering that one? That's probably what I would do.
On second thought, maybe blowing it off is the best idea....
-
Yeah, but we recommend. I'm certain you do too, in the case of original material. Does your boss do the homework part himself? If so - I'm impressed. I am also referring to original documents, not derivative decisions based on other documents. Where I'm at, it's not an unusual situation. I didn't mean to imply that I had any authority. It's just been my experience that one can get scolded for submitting something higher (and I'm speaking to original documents as well as derivatives) without every paragraph and sub appropriately marked. It's just how things work. If it didn't, directors would have no time to do anything BUT review documents. That's also why we have classification guidelines.
Hehe, good point. By derivative, I just meant that I'm not deciding if something is classified, I'm just using an SCG to determine if it is or isn't. I mostly don't do portion marking just because 90% is classified and it is more pain that its worth to slice up a document so that it can be portion marked in any meaningful manner.
Also, I think it's within some directors charters in some agencies that they can delegate a lot of this, depending on the classification level to lower division directors and stuff.Probably. I never have figured out how that really works (or doesn't).
I do catch what you're saying, though about underlying material. When quoting a reference - the classification of the reference becomes the classification of the document. I run into situations though where a compilation of unclassified stuff put together collectively can become classified because it fits certain guidelines. By the same token, referencing a small part of the compilation can reduce or eliminate the classification - and it's best to make the recommendation accordingly.
Most of my world is associations and multiple unclassified pieces which add up to classified stuff. That's not much fun, but as long as you work in an open storage SCIF it's not that big of a deal.
Me neither.
-
When a new administration takes office, they can and will shidtcan policy documents of the previous, or keep them - depending on whether they fit their system of doing things. I regularly use Clinton PDD-56 as a reference for some of my work, as it was never rescinded.
And, the easiest way to get something done quick, IS to issue a presidential order. It's good to be the King.
And FWIW, even I (and about 20 million other people) regularly make classification/declassification decisions on stuff. That's what agency directors approve. I even have to keep statistics on how many classified documents I generate and at what level the classification is, because somebody somewhere keeps track of that, for some reason never explained to me.
BiB,
You and I make derivative decisions about groupings (documents, etc.), but at least I know that I cannot declassify (nor classify) the undelying information. If you have that power, I am impressed.
At any rate, I for one am more comfortable with DC making these decisions that I would be with GWB. But that's me.
-
-
-
Jim Kelly was 26. His third year in pro football. Losman will be 25, his third year in pro football. Collins was also 26, his third year in pro football. Levy is going to say to himself, hmmm, the last time I let a young quarterback take the reigns in his third year it was my last season as a head coach? Without thinking, the second last time I let a young quarterback take the reigns in his third year we both ended up in the hall of fame?
Except he allegedly won't be micromanaging Mularkey. It will be MM's call, right?
-
Not really. You're desperately trying to win a semantic game (like backpeddling to Redondo Beach when I was critical of LA's air quality).
At the end of the day all levels of government take for granted the fact that they can screw the public by keeping them playing tiddliwinks over minutia while ignoring the bigger picture. Sorry that was so difficult to get to.
Semantic game?? Dude, you're losing it. Redondo Beach has good air quality. That's where I'd be. Your analogy doesn't hold, since I would not be in a city with the "filthiest air in the country so can attend a smoke free bar". That's quite straightforward.
As for the rest, well, go ahead and play coy, I guess, but we both know what you were implying, whether you admit it or not...
-
-
-
Apparently nothing new but in the lead up to the UN vote on intervention in Iraq, we were spying on Security Council members, including tapping home phones and e-mails to get an idea how the vote was going. The story first broke in 2003 when a British translator leaked an NSA e-mail from Chief of Staff for Regional Targets Frank Koza. The translator, Katharine Tersea Gun, was later charged with violating Britian's Official Secrets Act so it seems as though the e-mail was authentic. Ari Fleischer was asked about it at the time and said " "As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments on anything involving any people involved in intelligence, so I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."
That was then. Fresh confirmation of the spying has now emerged which cites "NSA documents", "two former NSA officials", "one intelligence source" and "one former official". A story, along with a copy of the original leaked e-mail can be found at NSA Spying
When contacted to comment, the WH refused and referred the writers to that two year old statement made by Ari F.
Is this true? Dunno. What and who is a "former official", official of what? Are they qouting one guy and referring to him with different sobriquets to make it sound like they have more sources than they really do? Woodward's book makes a pretty good case that we were spying on Hans Blix so if this were true, it shouldn't shock anyone besides me
.Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Maybe we should be spying on the Security Council but if so, what about treaties we have signed to the contrary? What does this do to our credibility if we are promising one thing in a treaty and doing another in secret? What is more maddening, that we are doing this or that we got caught?
This raises some interesting questions on the nether regions where diplomacy and surveillance meet.
Mickey,
Irrespective of any treaties, we spy on everyone and they spy on us. It has always been this way. Is it right or wrong? Depends on who you ask and who is being spied on.
The only thing surprising to me here is that you are surprised.
-
Now you're playing games. There is FEDERAL in your post title. FEDERAL referred to in the link (Federal spending). If you knew that your sentence did not apply to the FEDERAL government, it had no place in your post.
-
We'll see. It's funny that you're talking about going to a city with some of the filthiest air in the country so you can attend a smoke free bar. Typical California politics.
Don't loop me in with the zealots. While I think abortion is disgusting, I also think it should be legal - and expanded to include retroactivity.
Oh my God (pun intended) Darin, don't challenge me on LA. I lived there for 10 years. Redondo Beach - virtually all the beach cities- have extrodinarily clean air. All the crap blows inland. That's where I hung out.
-
ADN Reports
Go, go, big government.
But let's spend some more time outlawing smoking in private establishments and pretending that's a good thing.
Since when has the Federal Government ever outlawed smoking in private establishments???
Check your facts. -
I've posted ad nauseum about getting the federal government out of such things because it has been proven that them throwing money at problems simply makes the problems more expensive with very little change in benefit (but lots more stuff to campaign to the lemmings with). There's a search feature here, use it. And if you're going to accuse me of something, please be correct: Big, intrusive, overbearing government bad.
It's also nice to see that you can't offer anything at all of substance and would rather continue to stalk after me.
I think USC wins this game and wins it big but games like are generally won by the team that starts off well and doesn't lose momentum. It's a hard game for me to handicap because neither team has played anyone of substance for nearly half a season (USC) or since week one (Texas).
Oh, and ND still beat USC (friggin' officials).
But ND won't beat OSU. Maybe I'll go visit my buds in LA and watch the Fiesta Bowl in a wonderful, smoke-free bar, provided at no cost by the people of the State of California.
You can go help VA fire-bomb an abortion clinic....
-
Berg, I have to say, you are starting to irritate me. You have made several unkind, uncalled-for, rude attacks upon posters as this thread wore on.
Understand what I said earlier: smoking costs smokers most of all.
I would think better of you, if you would say: "I will endeavor to make smoking illegal. I understand that they will live longer, and therefore cost me money. I also realize that they subsidize my home State's appetitite for taxation, so I gladly will fork over 700 bucks or so per year in additional taxation to make up the shortfall once tobacco is deemed illegal. I understand that this so-called "tobacco settelement", an attack economic and imperial by the the government upon the private sector, has only served to richen State coffers, and know that the States use about 2% of the money coercered, for anti-smoking programs."
Gain a bit of introspection about the goals of the crowd who pulled that off. Don't ever think you can't be next, whence it starts. The history of the world proves so, time after time.
You should be ashamed, for your attack on the citizenry that rightfully exercise their private affairs.
Be the man...
Sorry, but if you thought what I've said previously was rude, you'll think this is too. I really don't give a sh-- if you're getting irritated. The only poster I was "rude" to was dumb-sh-- blue fire, because s/he started trying to tell me what my opinion really is. If you thought I was being rude to Darin, then you don't know anything about him or me. Ask him yourself and see what he says. I'm sure he'll say something similar to what I say about him - I enjoy debate with him especially when he's wrong and I never let any post on a stupid message board bother me; I know him well enough to know I respect him quite a bit.
Lastly, in response to your dorky paragraph about what you'd like me to say, well why don't you pay attention too. I just want to be able to go to a bar and/or restaurant and not breathe smoke since I don't smoke. The rest is bull sh--. I'm a tobacco user; I don't want it made illegal. How do you people not get that by now?
Not only am I not ashamed, I am in fact proud that I live in a country where, as a member of the military, I support and defend each citizen's right to voice their opinion freely about any topic they so choose.
Anything else I can help you with???
-
I don't have the patience to deal with all of your quotes and rebuttals, but Berg is dead on wrong about the legality of spitting, so he can flush that analogy.
Spitting is generally at least an assault. (Google: spitting assault) In some cases, when the expectorator has HIV or something like that, it can be battery.
Further, and this is a memory from law school that may be mistaken, if someone spits on me, and I beat the snot out of him, I can defend my attack as provoked because spitting falls into the category of "fighting words." The other things that can be fighting words are questioning someone's sexuality (one TBD poster's province), or calling someone a racial epithet.
Not only that, how could I not chime in once Tom brought up dueling?
EDIT:
Dead wrong? I never claimed it was legal. I doubted Darin because it seems to be such a stupid thing to be illegal. However, after doing a little more searching, I found that Indiana, by coincidence, has a battery by bodily fluids charge. So analogy retracted, as I said I would do.
Unlike most on this board, I can admit when I don't know something and will revise my argument or stance if necessary based on new information. Trivial in this instance.
-
You obviously aren't paying attention, and of anyone here, I feel comfortable claiming to be the expert in my own opinion. I'm arguing for no one but myself, so re-read the entire thread - or don't - and choose to comprehend - or don't. In any case, I have no intention of re-hashing everything I already said just because you don't get it.
-
-
To be fair, I could do without having to breathe cigarette smoke in public as well. But as you both have so forcefully pointed out, it SHOULD be a consideration issue for people to obey smoking laws, and it definitely SHOULD not be the governments responsibility to regulate smoking laws in private establishments like restuarants and bars.
You may not agree, but I don't think the government should have to pass common sense laws like wearing your seatbelt, and wearing a helmet to operate a motorcycle.
And, perhaps I was a bit melodramatic with my statement, but I certainly don't find it laughable to use Orwellian concepts to describe this particular situation. Because I do pay attention to current events, and most of what I hear coming from the lawyers these days is pretty scary stuff...
I'm knee deep in present wrapping and toy putting-together, but more later on why I have no Orwellian fears.
-
I would have decked the guy.
Or maybe not, if I were already coughing up blood.
That, though, is less a "smoking" issue and more a "people have no sense of decency" issue. Like the guy I almost killed the other day at Home Depot, who leaned his four sheets ot three-quarter ply against my new car while he talked on the cell phone.
Sure, we could pass some "anti-plywood" law, and that "wouldn't" happen...but it doesn't help the root issue: that people - some, not all - are simply ass holes.That's been my point all along.
-
Regarding illegal spitting, do you expect me to just take your word for it? Sorry, I don't. Prove it and I'll retract that analogy. Remember, just because you can't think of an intelligent quip in response, that doesn't mean something is stupid. What it actually means I'm smarter than you are.
What you've failed to address even in passing is how society is supposed to operate if not by setting general expectations for acceptable behaviour then enacting legislation to enforce that which it deems appropriate. Laws have been a classical gauge of how civilized a society is.
And mob mentality is exactly why laws are necessary. If you get a whole bunch of idiots...err people together, say for a Bills game. Sprinkle liberally with alcohol, and what do you get? Imagine how that would be without even the hint of repurcussions.
Smokers do not have to smoke at bars. They do not have to smoke at restaurants. I don't appreciate watery eyes and stinky clothes due to their personal choice on the very small amount of times I go each year. If I had the choice to go to non-smoking bars or restaurants, I would. I don't have that choice unless I go to CA.
And if you can convince my Wife that we should stay home for her birthday and our anniversary rather that go out to eat, I'll buy you a cigar. Or a can of Cope. Or an "I'm with stupid" T-shirt or somethin'.
Now I gotta go finish watching the 4th Q of the Bills game.
Later "butt"-head...
The Race as seen from here
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
Damn, I'd love to see Sarah Palin "exposed"!