Today I have a dilemma. It's the same dilemma I've had for a few days now. It's basically the main reason I haven't been posting much...that and my newfound World of Warcraft addiction.
The deal is that there are just too many stories I could be ranting about that I'm locked up cold. I can't pick one and just go with it. So here I am, asking you, my few readers, what I should write about:
1. Who should be the next Supreme Court Justice?
2. Democrat says Gulag = Censure. Republican says some liberals too sensitive to terrorists needs = RESIGN! Do we have a double standard here?
3. File swapping companies can now be sued.
4. Eminent Domain. Need I say any more?
5. The real torturers at Gitmo: the detainees.
6. why Iraq is STILL NOT Vietnam.
7. What should we do with the filibuster?
8. Now that I covered boobies should I move on to other body parts?
9. Atkins is worthless and doesn't f**king work!
10. The best option for known terrorists: Hire mercenaries.
Well, I could probably go on for a good ten more, but these are the most pressing. I'd talk about borders but it's sort of a moot point considering no one one either side of congress really gives a rat's ass about it.
So here I sit, waiting for someone to steer me in the right direction. Someone please guide me.
I vote for number 3, then 5, then 2.
Posted by: Amy at July 5, 2005 10:34 PMDid you really cover Boobies? I can't remember...lets do that one again.
Posted by: Michael at July 7, 2005 01:41 AMGo for mercenaries.
I haven't heard that one anywhere else.
Seriously, what are the ups and downs of hiring contract killers for known targets?
Should we go for a completely "black" operation, where our contract-officers know as little as possible about the dirty deed, but get definitive "proof of death" before the contract-money is settled? Do we give front money for their setup and overhead?
Or do we go "gray", where we give them surveillance support, and a little tactical/logistic support, and tell them to shake a leg?
Where do we look for contract killers with the skills necessary to pull the job off? Do we want to breed international teams of high-quality contract killers?
The sticky part is, we'll need something to hang over their heads so that they won't ever hit an American public servant (or citizen, for that matter). That'll be hard to set up, and contract killers will either require regular payments or a dire threat--maybe both--to keep from selling their skills to the wrong side.
Posted by: karrde at July 7, 2005 10:48 PMI found the subject of terrorism to be the most intriguing of several intriguing subjects.
In a sense, we already have a 'black ops' group in place, called the CIA. Many of their operations are beyond even the president's knowledge (who do you really think could have done the JFK assassination and gotten away with it?)
But first, review the most significant political assassinations of the last century or so. JFK, MLK, Rabin (of Israel), Sadat, all of the definitive 'peacemaker' mold. How many hits have you seen on the warmongerers like Komeni, Bin Laden, Khadafi, and (sorry) Bush I and II?
The scope of the common man's knowledge of the dark underbelly of international politics is beyond the reckoning of the most ranted Robert Ludlum novel and puts in perspective just how ignorant we are kept on the subject. Even the most intelligent and informed citizens.
There exists an intensely frightening question of "Who are the actual percieved threats?" to the politics of which we are deliberately decieved?
While my conniving side is in full and invariable favor of a contract mercenary approach, my reasonable side is overwhelmed by the realization that it has already been thought of by the 'powers that be', and begs the question...What good would it really do?
Posted by: Terry at July 11, 2005 08:57 PM