Okee dokee, but keep in mind, with your parameters you're gonna get some stinky skanky ho-bags coming through your line. You might want to be just a bit more selective, such as: has bathed in the last week, free of crabs, with no open sores. A-cup, B-cup, C-cup, Double D's...no one body type is immune to skankism.

gotcha :right:

Assuming terrorists are clever and have an understanding of our security systems, there will always be a risk that security measures can be bypassed. Even though it may have a small effect, I don't know how banning everything that could potentially be an explosive will solve the problem since a terrorist will just quickly adapt and use a new method. There is the obvious question of where we want our security versus airplane freedom equilibrium but it seems that the act of addressing that issue will naturally make it worthless since publicly stating the line where security will not cross does not seem intelligent from a "lets stop terrorist attacks" standpoint.

For racial discrimination, especially with Muslims, I would not be surprised if that actually backfired and created more problems than it solves. There have been numerous amounts of Somalis that have been tailed by the CIA here in Minneapolis for terrorist reasons and I strongly believe that we will send more off the edge by treating entire ethnic/religious groups as second class citizens. Also, keep in mind that the isolation of Muslims in the United States is a goal of Al Qaeda. Like airport security, this issue is a tight rope act and it seems most officials are plastered beyond belief.

Good piece here on the travel security theater:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulli..._on_flight_253

Ha, now you're my editor? My sentence stands as written, "to be" is extraneous. Quote me all you want, but don't impose your idea of correct grammar on me. I shouldn't be surprised, the way you cut and pasted my individual words before, taking me out of context...OMG, yeah. That is your MO.

(chuckle) An editor, with the crap blogs you post and call "news." That's rich!

That was a very good snapshot.

As Dana stated intel is the key. But really, to take it one step further, counter-intellegence is paramount in that approach. We have to infiltrate the organizations and allow the agencies who have the expertise a free hand to exploit their weaknesses from the inside. We have a huge problem will the lack of any form of intel in many parts of this world. It takes many years (10 - 20) to form the base of a strong counter intel program in the areas of concern. And with the recent abuses that were exposed in the last 8 years many of those people are now gun shy as to what and what they should or should not do. There is much repair that needs to done for this process to move forward effectively. It will take years of investment and selective development of resources to gain the intel insight or position the right people to do the job effectively.

On the other hand, with the openess of our society, the bad guys have had many years to develop their base.

Really? I didn't know it was extraneous. I stand corrected.

Ha! Of course you do. Someone write that down. Even dripping with sarcasm, it's a first for classhole.

No sarcasm implied nor intended. I always thought it was necessary to include the "to be".

"The car needs to be cleaned"
vs.
"The car needs cleaned."
still doesn't sound right to me.

The car needs cleaned does sound a bit off, but it's still correct. Which is more nearly correct? I don't know. I tend to leave "to be" out of sentences when I don't think the extra words are needed. I do this so I have room for more filler in the way of run-on sentences, dangling participles, and extreme hyberbole.

Also, the act of "being cleaned" is a physical, tangible thing. The process of being enlightened is not a tangible thing. Intangibles have other rules sometimes, such as subjunctive mood (saying "I wish I were somewhere else" as opposed to saying "I wish I was somewhere else." If, and wish, call you to use were, not was. I don't know if this is relevant, but in my ear, in that sentence, "to be" was extraneous.

I won't even start on whether or not I should have used "need" instead of "needs" since "us" was a collective. I have no idea.

I thought it was a tense issue. ( double meaning intended)
Doesn't the "to be" need (to be) in that sentence so that the tense is correct?
I hate grammar. Thats why I try to stick to numbers.

I don't think so, but I don't really know. It seems to me that "to be" became part of our vernacular, and we're used to hearing it that way, but the sentence is fine without it. I've been wrong before, though. (shhhhh)

For Christmas, we gave my son a son a shirt that said something like "The English Language - cobbled together by three blind men with a German dictionary". :D

:eyebrow: German terrorists? :3eye:

The car needs to be cleaned.
The car needs cleaning.

The car needs cleaned. :eyebrow::headshake