Okay readers, here’s the Saturday afternoon poser for this week: What would you do for 50 million dollars that you would not do for 25 million dollars?
There are a few answers to this question that would make sense. One I could think of would be that gosh, I would sell a mansion that cost 38 million dollars for 50 million dollars, but I wouldn’t sell it for 25 million dollars.
Economic deals of this sort aside, however, there is not much persuasive difference between offering someone 25 million dollars to do something, and offering someone 50 million dollars to do something. Most of us, millionaires and big businesses aside, wouldn’t quibble about the difference.
Maybe it’s because so many United States Senators ARE millionaires that they don’t understand this issue. Yesterday, a large majority of senators voted in favor of amendment 2135 to the Defense Authorization Bill. That amendment doubled the reward for information leading to the capture of Osama Bin Laden from 25 million dollars to 50 million dollars.
It’s a great piece of showmanship, this amendment, but in reality, it won’t accomplish much.
Just think about it for a minute. What kind of person would say no when offered 25 million dollars to risk their lives by betraying the position of Osama Bin Laden to the United States, but when offered 50 million dollars, agree to do it? It makes no sense. If a person wasn’t persuaded by a 25 million dollar reward offer, why would 50 million dollars persuade them?
This legislation is nothing more than an attempt by United States Senators to try to cover their butts, and look like they’re doing something to capture Osama Bin Laden, when in fact they don’t know what to do that would have much effect. This doubling of the reward won’t accomplish anything. It’s just vain posturing.
Sadly, some of the presidential candidates from the Senate seem more than happy to engage in vain posturing in order to look tough while not bothering to craft a smart policy. Of the senators running for President in 2008, Hillary Clinton and Sam Brownback voted in favor of this ridiculous amendment.
Not one presidential candidate from the Senate had the guts to vote against the silly bill to double to reward money from 25 mountains of gold to 50 mountains of gold. However, at least the following presidential candidates from the Senate had the decency to abstain from the vote, rather than voting in favor:
It’s still not a good move, but it’s better than a vote in favor.
Oh, this is so not true.
That’s why Peregrin Wood didn’t post a LINK.
Actually, I can attest it is true. I caught the story on Fox News…no, I wasn’t watching Fox News, it caught my eye while I was searching in vain for Star Trek reruns. But if you want a link, I’ll supply you with one:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1844494
Thank you, Damen. That is the kind of journalistic integrity and self discipline one has come to expect of progressive sources.
Er, you can let me know if you find any Star Trek reruns too.
Fifty million? Oh, you could go to America, the land of easy women without head scarves, and be a millionaire with 49 of your scruffy Army of True Islam buddies and forget waiting for the 79 virgins in paradise. I knew they offered money for Saddam and Kusai and Uday (which were both paid out), but I never heard about the reward for Osama.
Does anyone really think they don’t know where he is.
Search the Library of Congress, Iroquois.
Peregrin gave you the information to do so with: amendment 2135 to the Defense Authorization Bill, July 13, 2007.
All you have to do is go look at the roll call votes for the day. It’s right there. Easy.
But no, you just write that it’s not true, without even bothering to look.
Why don’t you stop whining, Iroquois, and look for a change – in the mirror.
No citations to sources? That’s a typical lazy conservative approach, scrumptious.
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/03/13/hillary-clinton-bitch-watch/#comment-299165
I am going to continue to whine at Peregrin because he is not a lazy conservative and because he has a lot going for him that he does not show online. This was actually a pretty good piece–lots of substance and very amusing and engaging writing style, but was spoiled by lack of citation.
I just got through defending jclifford’s integrity, which was harder than it would have had to have been–not because jclifford doesn’t have integrity, he’s got that coming out of his ears–but because he didn’t post his links, which he is usually pretty good about doing. When that happens, the goofusses can try to get the upper hand.
You don’t sound too shabby yourself, scrumptious, why don’t you write more here, in the diaries or whatever–with citations, of course.
You know, Peregrin could still edit this and insert his links. It’s not hard at all. He could probably still retrieve the links he used to write the piece by clicking “history” and displaying it in the left sidebar. With the kind of seat-of-the pants writing these guys do, I don’t think anyone would complain if he added his links now.
Or, Iroquois, you could just shut up about it and stop being the self-appointed school marm about the site and people’s comments.
Well, Tom you’ve moaned and groaned and pissed and bitched about everything under the sun, oh, woe is me, the world is coming to an end, so I’m not at all surprised you’ve decided to piss and moan at me.
A major difference between the progressive and conservative approach is that the progressives base their ideas on facts. One way to know that ideas have been based on facts and not invented out of whole cloth or personal prejudice is the inclusion of citations and links.
The difference between the veracity of Peregrin’s piece and the American family Association is that at least the AFA cites the Bible as a source so you can go back and see where they got something from. Oh, I forgot, Damen provided a source, so now Peregrin’s respectable again.
And what’s this “just shut up” thing, Tom? Why don’t you eat shit and die?
And look. What with Hillary Clinton’s so-called foreign policy expertise and everything, did it work?
Did this Hillary Clinton bill work to capture Osama Bin Laden?
Nope.
Experience isn’t everything. Judgment counts for a lot.