TheManWithAUsername wrote:

jsteele wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
The taboo against assassination has never made sense. Of course the leadership wants to prohibit it - they'd much rather thousands or millions of innocents die than one of them suffer.

You make a good argument but just because assassination is not as bad -- at least in the short term -- as alternatives doesn't mean that it is good. Just how long do you expect Iran to sit around doing nothing while its scientists are killed? There have already been a couple of Israeli scientists killed in mysterious circumstances (one in the US). Tit for tat only lasts so long before one side escalates. Iran is not the pushover that some of Israel's enemies have proven to be.

I don't expect it to change their behavior at all.

From their (i.e., his) words, they couldn't be any more opposed to the U.S. and Israel. I take them at their word that they would gleefully eradicate us if they could, so angering them isn't an issue.

I understand that certain actions could push them into a corner such that they feel that they have to act despite whatever is currently restraining them, but I don't think killing any number of scientists will create that reaction. I don't think the Iranian government will be inclined to do something desperate unless they're directly threatened with death or removal.

I have about as much basis for predicting their reactions as does my 5-year-old, but I'd rather gamble with the prospect of them starting a conventional war with our allies than gamble on what they'd do with a nuclear weapon, possibly directly to us.

I'm not sure that you understood my post. So, let's sort this out.

First, it is not at all clear that the deaths of the scientists killed so far has fundamentally harmed any Iranian nuclear program that may or may not exist. Maybe the deaths set back the program, maybe they didn't. But, if a program of that importance hangs on the lives of such a small number of individuals, I would be shocked to find those individuals wandering around the streets of Tehran.

Second, my point is not that killing Iranian scientists would lead Iran to launch either a conventional or nuclear attack. Rather, I envision the sort of tit for tat that is common in that part of the world. As I said, Israeli scientists have been killed recently in unusual circumstances. Was Iran behind those deaths? I have no way of knowing. But, if Iran is behind them, how will Israel react? How will Iran react to that reaction? If things escalate -- which is the natural tendency of such things, we will be right back to the massive sort of fighting that you think is being prevented by assassinations. You seem to see assassination as a solution to avoid greater violence. I see it as a step that is more likely to lead to greater violence than it is to avoid further violence.
Finally, it is really disappointing to see you resort to the sort of right-wing jingoism that you normally parody. Please provide one single direct quote from an Iranian leader saying that he would like to eradicate the US. Yes, I know that "everyone knows" such things have been said. Just like "everyone knew" Iraq was producing WMDs. I don't care what "everyone knows". I would like you to provide one direct quote.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
The taboo against assassination has never made sense. Of course the leadership wants to prohibit it - they'd much rather thousands or millions of innocents die than one of them suffer.

You make a good argument but just because assassination is not as bad -- at least in the short term -- as alternatives doesn't mean that it is good. Just how long do you expect Iran to sit around doing nothing while its scientists are killed? There have already been a couple of Israeli scientists killed in mysterious circumstances (one in the US). Tit for tat only lasts so long before one side escalates. Iran is not the pushover that some of Israel's enemies have proven to be.

If anyone is interested, I've made my choice for the upcoming vote over the At-Large seat currently held by Vincent Orange:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/weblog/2012/02/03/biddle-at-large

Anonymous wrote:Have you considered adding ReCAPTCHA requirement for posts? Or integrating Mollom? Spam is nasty business ...
(written by alternate user at this IP )

Yes, I can turn captcha on in less than five minutes if I choose. So far, I can handle the spammers. Tonight's was one of the worst cases ever. But, given what is possible, it was fairly minor (about 20 posts).

Anonymous wrote: I didn't want people's responses to be tainted by their opinion on my position re the children in question... why did my post get deleted?

It was a serious questions and we've been working so hard to address those issues... You know my IP address and you can easily see who I am. Was there anything offensive that I wrote?

Honestly curious here...

Your thread got reported to me for trolling. I only read the first post and in light of the recent children/sex threads, I assumed it was indeed trolling. As mentioned in the above post, I'm a bit preoccupied tonight. So, I apologize if I was wrong to shoot first and ask questions later in this case.

Anonymous wrote:Tacking onto this re: "the MB is furious" thread on the nanny forum--I understand why you deleted those three rambling wacko posts towards the end of the thread, but you threw the baby out with the bathwater when you deleted my reply to the OP that was posted right before all that nonsense...

You haven't deleted anything else that I've posted today (that I can tell), so I guess I'm ok?

Sorry, your post was an accident. I'm trying to do about three things at once. There was a huge spam attack on the site tonight that I was cleaning up at the same time and I was in the middle of a new blog article (going up tomorrow). I was just clicking "delete" and got carried away.

Anonymous wrote:20:32 here. Speaking of which, how far back are you able to go in looking at posts. Can you see everything a person's ever posted on DCUM?

Unless a post has been deleted, it is in the database and we can read it. But, it is very hard to track people over a significant period of time. IP addresses change and everyone has several devices these days (e.g. home computer, work computer, smart phone, iPad, etc.). But, the biggest hurdle to looking at a bunch of messages is that it is extremely boring and time-consuming. I don't really have to track trouble-makers. Their messages get reported. There is one idiot troll here who uses proxy servers and other means to cloak his presence. But, he gets identified daily. Not by my efforts, but by people reporting him. I don't have to look for him at all and I don't spend any time doing so.

Anonymous wrote:What about me?

You? Why would I ban you? I wish we had more like you.

Anonymous wrote:You banned me for what I think was a pretty average post and I've seen worse stuff around here

It was not one post. You made a series of posts that were objectionable. Plus, you are in Illinois. Not exactly our target audience. I'm from Illinois by the way. If you promise to be nice from now on, I'll un-ban you.

Anonymous wrote:
Come on, you don't really think all the snark is coming from ONE person, do you? Or even 10 people??? Jeff, can you verify that all the evil on DCUM is not traceable to a particular poster?

I can verify that all the evil on DCUM is not traceable to a particular poster. However, I think many of you would be surprised by how much negativity comes from so few posters. There are a handful of posters who will post 20-30 posts a day, most of which are either outright mean or, at a minimum, snarky. I try to block them, but they are very determined and find their way back in. They post so frequently that it is very difficult to control them. Maria and I have pet names for most of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

elementary schools east of the park as parents of homogenously wealthy neighborhoods ....

I'm trying to figure out where this is?

I know there are little -pockets- of Capitol Hill that are factually described as "wealthy." ie, 1 percenters. Not upper middle class-ers, but honest to God rich people. The people owning the SFHs right on Logan Circle are probably "wealthy," as the Census or Brookings describes that term. Maybe the people in the penthouses in Penn Quarter (but not the single newly minted lawyer in the studio 7 floors down).

I can't think of a single neighborhood east of RCP that is monolithically wealthy. There are only a couple west of RCP, fyi.

(the definition of wealth and 1% for our area is between $350 and 500K HHI annually)

Maybe Crestwood? (That gorgeous area that stretches down along the eastern border of the park on one side and 16th or so on the east?) I think it's also called DC's "Gold Coast" - very wealthy AA neighborhood. Inbounds school is probably Shepherd or West?

Crestwood has some wealthy people, especially if you include the Rockefellers, but it is certainly not "monolithically wealthy" and I doubt that its average HHI is anywhere close to $350K per year. The inbounds elementary schools are West and Powell.

Anonymous wrote:
Not sure why they'd be looking to fire people. From what I heard, the surplus was largely due to much higher revenues than expected. Part of that was the explosive growth in new residents with incomes over $100k.

This simply can't be right. We were assured over and over again that Gray's election would cause a shortage of moving vans as the entire Ward 3 population moved to Maryland. I have avoided Connecticut Avenue for a year in order not be run over. You sure mean "the explosive grown of residents with incomes over $100k relocating out of the District", don't you?

Anonymous wrote:
"A mom uses the word vagina but doesn't teach her nine-year old the facts of life?"

Thanks for the chuckle. I like how you linked these two.

Truly tickled here.

Actually, I don't understand what is unusual about this. What word would a mom who doesn't teach a nine-year old the facts of life use?

Anonymous wrote:the left never attacks socialism or stalin. they never say socialiam is ignorant. they never say communism is an idea for stupid people. they don't like the truth.

Given the recent confusion, can you please clarify whether or not this is parody.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, I want to be clear. He supports Moon-statehood but not DC-statehood?

Yes, the moon will get senators before we do!!!!!

Also, Puerto Rico. He said if Puerto Rico wants statehood, he would work with them to get it. So, DC is behind Puerto Rico and the moon.