Indexes
November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- The country's mess is our fault (162)
- Obama is not a moderate (130)
- Sarah Palin's book hits the shelves: Locals react (70)
- Lodi City Council plans to cap number of taco trucks at 22 (48)
- The haves should help the have-nots (30)
- Public health care is a Christian option (29)
- Tokay in, traveling to unbeaten No. 3 Grant for football playoffs (25)
- Government-run health care is a bad idea (17)
- Young woman fatally shot at Acampo home (17)
- Sierra Adventure store to close after four years in Downtown Lodi (16)
ADVERTISEMENT
How to sweet-talk terrorists in seven easy steps
Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:45 AM PDT
I just finished a college course entitled: "I Can Negotiate with Terrorists. You Can Too."
It was a real eye-opener, proving war is now obsolete in the 21st Century. Why the White House has not followed the teachings of my course instructor, Professor Eherhead, is beyond me.
The good professor teaches a seven-step process on how our president (or anyone for that matter) can get anything he wants by simply coming to the negotiating table. Here is Dr. Eherhead' s winning process revealed:
Step One: Keep your friends close but your enemies closer. True, the "prof" stole this one from The Godfather, but the wisdom is timeless. A leader should never make speeches about the "evil empire" or the "axis of evil." As president, he should only make positive public statements about his adversaries such as: "My dear friend, Kim Jong-il," or "I know in my heart that Iran only wants nukes for peaceful purposes."
Step Two: Never tell anyone outside your negotiating party what you are thinking.
OK, Eherhead stole this idea from the greatest movie ever made as well. But the principle is sound. "Loose lips make negotiations the pits."
Step Three: Establish rapport. No use beginning talks until the other party trusts you. The president, for example, should start by picking one of our country's foes and inviting him to the Texas ranch for a harmonious barbecue. Then he should then say how much the dictator's prowess for absolute power is admired by so many in our country. He should also express awe over the foreign leader's ability to silence critics — and permanently! Finally, the president and his guest might finish a good rack of tasty ribs by watching a Knicks' game on wide-screen HD. Get the other fellow to join in by cheering each dunk tossed by Jamal Crawford.
Step Four: Listen! After logistics have been set and people are at the negotiating table, our chief negotiator should say: "Tell us what your needs are." This will give the opposing party a chance to set its agenda. In the case of terrorists, for example, they might say something like: "We want our view of religion to dominate the world," "We want to destroy America and its culture," or "We want to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth."
Step Five: Convey empathy and understanding. Although one might wish to argue with such bold statements, a good negotiator must resist temptation. He should show understanding and identify with the adversary's position. Say things such as: "We could use more people in this country who are as passionate about their religion as you," or "You know, Henry Ford didn't care much for Jewish people either."
Step Six: Offer solutions. Our chief negotiator should think of himself as a problem solver. The first offer might go something like: "Would you be willing let Israel alone if we give you France?" or "What if we get rid of NOW, lap dancers and gay marriage? Would this be enough for you to accept our culture?"
Step Seven: Look for points of agreement. Sooner or later, the other side will wear down and begin to accept the offers of our negotiators. Of course, this calls for compromise on our part as well. The new America might lose its dominant religions, the Playboy Channel and visas to France, but the sacrifices will be well worth it. Thousands of lives could be saved, and no longer would we have the need to torture innocent combatants.
Professor Eherhead's plan seems so simple. Why hasn't the Bush administration awakened to modern methods of dealing with those who think differently than we? Wouldn't it be a much better world if our country could dissolve its military and use the money to provide health care for illegal aliens?
I look forward to that day!
Steve Hansen is a Lodi writer and satirist.
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
SportsGuru wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:35 AM:
NEW AIRPORT SECURITY MEASURES
June 7, 2008 (Associated Press)
The U.S. Department of Transportation Safety announced today that all airline, bus and train passengers will be required to "touch a pig" before boarding. Passengers unwilling to touch the swine will be subject to back-room personal screening. "
SportsGuru wrote on Jun 6, 2008 10:33 AM:
HOW TO END ISLAMIC TERRORISM TODAY: (Example press release from the Dept of Defense)
June 7, 2008 (Associated Press)
The U.S. Department of Defense announced today that all munitions used by the U.S. military will be dipped in pigs blood prior to being shipped out to its forces.
I wonder how many Islamic extremists would continue to want to fight and die against US forces if their trip to "paradise" were foiled by being initiated by an untimely end tainted in pigs blood? "
voter wrote on Jun 1, 2008 1:04 PM:
marie wrote on Jun 1, 2008 12:36 PM:
Leonard wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:52 AM:
If you want to see, try to underline something. "
voter wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:50 AM:
girard74 wrote on Jun 1, 2008 10:37 AM:
If the formatting tags work here as they obviously do, then inserting the correct HTML tags that point to an image within a publicly-accessible web-page should work as well. (IMHO) "
Leonard wrote on Jun 1, 2008 9:06 AM:
Perhaps a compromise could be reached. Here is my modest proposal. We use nuclear weapons to murder most of the hundreds of millions of Muslims that live in the Mid East but, if any women or children happen to survive, Marie and a cadre of like minded volunteers could be flown in to bayonet them. Perhaps Marie, since she is so willing to casually advocate mass murder on an unprecedented scale, could specialize in the infants.
Its hard to believe that we live with such monsters in our midst. It does, however, make it easier to see how the Nazi's came to power. "
voter wrote on Jun 1, 2008 8:36 AM:
"Drop a nuclear bomb?...Maybe, but it'd have to aniliate everyone"
This reveals quite a lot about you, marie. "
LEONARD wrote on May 31, 2008 6:14 PM:
The shites and sunis are not going to become friends but they very well may unite with Iran
I would say that the odds of the Sunni's uniting with Iran are slim and none. "
marie wrote on May 31, 2008 3:39 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 31, 2008 2:32 PM:
" Leonard, I know just enough about HTML to get myself in trouble, so don't use it here. On other discussion boards, I occasionally post photos, but here it doesn't work--I tried once. Any idea why not? "
I am not sure. The administrators have disabled a lot of tags. Frankly, I am surprised that we can still italicize and bold.
I often wish they would add a quote feature. It sure would make things clearer. "
dyan wrote on May 31, 2008 10:35 AM:
voter wrote on May 31, 2008 10:33 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 31, 2008 10:11 AM:
Basically, to put something in italics you have to begin with an $i$ and follow the bit that you want to italicize with $/i#.
The thing is that instead of using "$" you use < and instead of using "#", you use >.
I know this is not very clear, I can't show you the actual characters because they would format whatever I was writing and then become invisible.
To actually figure out how you might look at the following page.
http://www.quackit.com/html/tags/
The one thing you MUST remember to do, however, is to ALWAYS close your tags. If you don't, you will reformat the whole page.
If you want to try it, I would suggest you go to some page in the business section where no one ever posts or reads the comments, and fool around with it there until you feel comfortable with it. "
dyan wrote on May 31, 2008 9:51 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 31, 2008 9:34 AM:
The truth is that it is all about the carrot and the stick.
Diplomacy is meaningless if you don't have the force to back up your words.
Force is meaningless if you can't negotiate and thereby leverage it for political gain.
Together, in the right hands, they form a powerful tool.
From last nights posts, I suspect that you and I actually agree on this, where we differ, I think, is with regards to who we would like to see operating this tool. "
dyan wrote on May 31, 2008 8:53 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 31, 2008 6:39 AM:
" Hey, Mr. funnybone. Why don't clain that you were wrong in saying that
"negotiations" brought down the Soviets?
I will happily concede that negotiations alone were not the only thing that brought down the Soviets. My point was only that they were a significant component of the winning strategy. "
Ivan Dixon wrote on May 31, 2008 6:20 AM:
War is just diplomacy by other means. "
commonsense1 wrote on May 30, 2008 9:59 PM:
Stanford Man wrote on May 30, 2008 9:53 PM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:48 PM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:46 PM:
"negotiations" brought down the Soviets? "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 9:39 PM:
" O.K. Mr. Genius. Try Mike McFaul and Barten Bernstein, Stanford University.
Both claim this is still an open and debatable question "among historians" as to how much the role of outspending the Soviets played in their collapse
LOL!!!
And the retreat is on!
Gone is the Intellectual Colossus' earlier contention that diplomacy played no part in the fall of the Soviet Union. Now his mental magnificence simply argues that some scholars argue that other factors may have played a role.
Dyan, now that you have not only essentially conceded my argument but actually provided supporting evidence for it, why don't you do the honorable thing and simply admit that you were wrong.
There is no shame in defeat for an Intellectual Colossus, even when it comes at the hands of an thoughtless liberal like myself.
:) "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:39 PM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:37 PM:
voter wrote on May 30, 2008 9:37 PM:
voter wrote on May 30, 2008 9:27 PM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:17 PM:
Both claim this is still an open and debatable question "among historians" as to how much the role of outspending the Soviets played in their collapse. Hardly the open and shut case for "talking" as you surmise. Liberals just can't get away from the idea the talking solves all of our problems. The bottom line is it's nothing more than BS as these blogs prove beyond a doubt. Dictators rarely respect "negotiations" unless their backs are against the wall. As historian GR Groes has stated. "Thoughout history there is only one determination that sets the destiny of nations and that is: He who has the guns makes the rules." Of course in our case, only if we are willing to use them. "
voter wrote on May 30, 2008 8:39 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 8:39 PM:
There are many others but I shouldn't have to educate you on what is now common knowledge.
Oh... please... bring them on!
LOL!!! "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 8:33 PM:
" Oh my sarcastic one. Must I do all your homework for you? For starters, how about Sheldon Anderson, Associate Professor of History, University of Miami? There are many others but I shouldn't have to educate you on what is now common knowledge.
As evidenced by the recent address Professor Anderson gave at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars which was summarized as follows:
The argument that the Soviet Union bankrupted itself by trying to outspend the U.S. military, according to Anderson, is not supported by facts. He noted that the Soviet military budget did not increase substantially in the Reagan era and that the Soviet military had developed a cost-effective plan to respond to a potential U.S. development of Star Wars missile defense.
ROTFLMAO!!!!! (literally)
Far from supporting your absurd claim, it turns out that Professor Anderson directly contradicts it.
You don't have to be a Mental Colossus to see where this is heading! "
voter wrote on May 30, 2008 8:24 PM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 8:20 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 7:57 PM:
I eagerly await your citations. "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 7:55 PM:
" Of course, as historians have written, it wasn't the "talking" that collapsed the Soviet Union. It was outspending them on defense- something the Democrats didn't want to do. "
Chuckle...
Oh Mental Colossus, perhaps you would favor us with the names of some of these respected historians who maintain that diplomacy did not play a role in the collapse of the Soviet Empire?
One or two? "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 7:31 PM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 7:27 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 6:28 PM:
" And what do you think should be said in these "face to face" meetings? "
I would suggest that our President, whether it is Obama or McCain, emulate the approach Ronald Reagan took in his negotiations with the Soviet Union (or the Evil Empire, as he put it).
Reagan was always firm and at times he was inflexible but he was always willing to talk. The Great Communicator kept at it for 8 years and the result was the complete collapse of the Soviet Empire along with the liberation of Eastern Europe. "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 3:10 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 2:13 PM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 1:47 PM:
This gave him renewed hope that the U.S. really was a paper tiger. "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 12:40 PM:
" O.K. I'll explain it so even you can get it. He had already experienced the wrath of th U.S.
Hmmm.... but so had Hussein and on an infinitely greater scale.
I don't know, Oh Mighty Master of the Mind, the further you go with this argument, the weaker it gets.
I'm afraid that I still think Pat Buchanan is right on this one. "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 12:38 PM:
" When both sides see each other as "stupid," Who really holds the intelligence?
Hey, I have never even suggested that my feeble wits are any match for the Intellectual Colossus. "
Stanford Man wrote on May 30, 2008 11:41 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 11:39 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 11:08 AM:
" And of course, I don't possess your sense of liberal superiority either.
Hey man, you brought this on yourself. The moral of this story is as follows.
Don't go questioning other's intellect when you don't have the mental wherewithal to back up your words. "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 11:07 AM:
" What scared Gadhafi was Iraq. He thought he was next. Get it?
I see. So, when you wrote:
" With Gadhafi, We kicked his butt, killed a family member and then said: "let's talk
that was just a complete non sequitur? "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 11:05 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 10:58 AM:
Absolute power? "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 10:57 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 10:55 AM:
When we chickened out from destroying him in the first war, he saw that as a sign of weakness. "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 10:55 AM:
" With Gadhafi, We kicked his butt, killed a family member and then said: "let's talk."
I think the cause and effect between a single air raid in 1986 and the opening of negotiations two decades and four Presidents later is weak, to say the least.
Of course, I don't possess your Colossal Intellect but..... "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 10:52 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 10:15 AM:
" Very true. But also, the reasons we ended up in both gulf wars was the leader of Iraq saw us as not having the guts to follow through
I don't think there were any real doubts in Hussein's mind that the US was going to invade when we had 200,000 troops massed on his border. He may have thought that his military would perform better but he knew the War was coming.
Just out of curiosity,however, what do you think Hussein would have done differently if, as you suggest he should have, W had made his intentions absolutely clear before invading? "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 10:12 AM:
Well thankfully you aren't me. This forum exists precisely for the purpose of discussing (debating, arguing) what others have had published in the Lodi News-Sentinel, as well as between contributors here.
While it may be wishful thinking, I would be excited to learn that changes may be effectuated by the reasonable posting of comments critical of the articles published; such as having even the 'great' Steve Hansen take into consideration that the points he is trying to make may not be reaching its intended targets.
I have learned more about me by what others have posted in response to my comments and letters (many times harshly) that I know for certain that my contributions here have improved over time. Its called education, and I cannot get enough of it. "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 10:00 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 9:55 AM:
Oh, it's definitely me. After reading at least four of Mr. Hansen's contributions to the LNS, I have yet to find any that were worth my time reading. All have left me wondering just what this guy is trying to convey. This is known as a 'pattern' that has become expected of Hansen by me. Of course this is just my opinion. "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:54 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:50 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 9:50 AM:
" Leonard: Perhaps you are correct. But on the other hand, How many times have we been attacked since 911?
How many times were we attacked under your boy Clinton who did nothing in response except bomb a baby milk factory?
We are attacked every single day in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands of American soldiers and civilians have been killed. Tens of thousands have been wounded.
In the meantime, the government tells us that we are at an even greater danger of domestic attack than we were before 9/11. The Bush Administration has proven to be utterly incapable of capturing Osama Bin Laden.
Hell, they can't even adequately secure the Port of Oakland. "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 9:50 AM:
When you wrote, 'girard: I guess some people have to have all points explained clearly or they just dont "get it." That's the TV generation,' just who were you addressing your remarks to? I may have missed it, but is there another 'girard' debating here today?
Your inability to keep your own statements straight is nearly as confusing to me as your interpretation of Hansen's work. "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 9:46 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:44 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:41 AM:
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 9:36 AM:
" Duh
Sigh, the Intellectual Colossus has let us down yet again.
Leonard. He doesn't have the guts to use it and everyone knows that
Hmmm.... I question the validity of this statement. One of the reasons I like Obama is that I believe he would use force when America's interests are threatened rather than squandering our forces on foolish wars.
One of the effects of our endless engagement in Iraq has been the lowering of our military's combat readiness to the lowest levels in decades. "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:32 AM:
Maybe he's not playing in "C" but D minor. "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 9:27 AM:
Actually, you're doing fine on your own in this regard; there was no need to lay responsibility at Leonard's feet.
Your own post in response to my confusion surrounding most of Hansen's writings was not so subtle in your opinion of my level of intelligence. Does that not prove you guilty of the same offense you make against Leonard?
Again, are you unaware of the conflicts that you pose against yourself? "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 9:23 AM:
Do you not recognize a conflict in your own thinking in this regard? Or were you simply miffed at my challenging your assertion that Hansen's writings are 'great?' "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:13 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 9:10 AM:
It says it all in the title of the course: "you can negotiate anything."
Obviously you can't. Sometimes it just takes brute strength to overcome evil, especially when you are dealing with 7th century barbarians. "
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 9:03 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 8:59 AM:
This is precisely the kind of reaction I come to expect from those who have nothing of substance to contribute.
Why is it that opposition to another's opinion must be based upon stupidity or ignorance? Remarks such as this only serve to reveal the true measure of the person expressing them. "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 8:51 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 8:48 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 30, 2008 8:14 AM:
While all are entitled to their opinion, I have yet to read anything 'great' from Mr. Hansen's pen.
While this offering is 'somewhat' humorous and is as close to satire as I've seen from him, he consistently leaves me wondering as to what his point is. It's kind of like playing a major scale on a piano; when one starts at 'C' and continues naturally up and ends at 'B,' most people aren't satisfied until the final 'C' is played. That is, by not finishing the scale it is simply unfinished. This is how I view Hansen's writing in general. It's almost as if he can't find his way to bringing the reader to a natural conclusion resulting in an understanding of his point. (IMHO) "
Leonard wrote on May 30, 2008 7:38 AM:
" Excellent points, Leonard. Of course with Gadhafi, we negotiated from a position of strength, not weakness as Obama would have us do. "
Dyan, as always I am stunned by your Mighty Intellect but I wonder whether you would explain to this non thinking liberal how Obama, backed up by the worlds largest nuclear arsenal and the world's strongest military, would be negotiating from a position of weakness? "
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 6:49 AM:
dyan wrote on May 30, 2008 6:47 AM:
voter wrote on May 29, 2008 9:08 PM:
sam wrote on May 29, 2008 8:00 PM:
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 7:19 PM:
I usually delete it but every now and then something catches my eye.
As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day. "
Leonard wrote on May 29, 2008 7:16 PM:
Professor Eherhead's plan seems so simple. Why hasn't the Bush administration awakened to modern methods of dealing with those who think differently than we?
The fact is that the Bush Administration has already spent much of the last 4 years negotiating with terrorist states.
Pat Buchanan wrote an excellent piece on this very subject recently which I heartily recommend to everyone.
Among the points he made were the following:
Bush's father negotiated with Syria's Hafez al-Assad, the Butcher of Hama, and made him an American ally in the Gulf War.
Was President Bush's father a deluded fool?
The president's own diplomats negotiated an end to the nuclear program of Col. Gadhafi, who was responsible for the air massacre of American school kids over Lockerbie.
Bush's own diplomats are negotiating with Kim Jong-il's North Korea, a state sponsor of terror. Ambassador Ryan Crocker is negotiating with Iranians in Baghdad.
The entirety of Buchanan's article can be found at the following link.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26606 "
dyan wrote on May 29, 2008 12:07 PM:
drrobertsantry wrote on May 29, 2008 4:28 AM:
Thank you for the humor, Dr. Hansen.
I think I will take the class with Prof. Ehrehead.
Prof.Dr.med. R.M. Santry
Ober-Ramstadt, Germany "
Cogito wrote on May 28, 2008 10:30 PM:
dyan wrote on May 28, 2008 8:07 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 12:59 PM:
As for McClellan's book - wtf is more than likely correct, as there may be nothing here that hasn't been stated before. Since I haven't been able to actually read it I cannot reach that conclusion with absolute certainty.
Books like his however, do raise an interesting point. If someone of more respectable status, say Colin Powell publishes a book after the conclusion of the Bush administration with similar opinions as to the way matters were handled from the White House, will he (or others) be equally as pilloried from both sides for his (their) lack of courage to come forward at an earlier time?
From what I have gathered thus far from those who have read this particular book, there appears to be no new startling revelations. In fact it is most likely another compilation of 'what ifs,' 'maybe's,' 'suspicions,' 'opinions,' etc., with little or no facts and almost certainly no evidence. My belief is that Mr. McClellan must be awfully angry at someone and this is just his way of getting even for his perceived mistreatment during his tenure in the Bush Administration or he is simply hungry. "
wtf wrote on May 28, 2008 12:24 PM:
The fact is now that it's all over, the war started, the Americans and Iraqis dead and crippled, now the mainstream media will admit that the government lied us into the war because now it is too late to stop it, and there is a book to sell and money to be made. So now, five years after the fact, and more to the point, five years after the blogs blew the whistle on the lies that led to war, the MSM finally catches up to reality.
Second, I do not congratulate McClellan on his book. I will not buy it, read it, or promote it. The book is an admission that Scott McClellen KNEW HE WAS LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHEN HE STOOD AT THAT PODIUM IN THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS ROOM. The blood of our dead young men and women stains his hands and every page of that book. And having earned his keep as a paid liar for the government, now McClellan shamelessly tries to reap a few more bucks with a "how we put the screws to the country" manual.
McClellan's book does not tell the American people anything that was not already being written on the blogs five years ago. He just wants to act like he is breaking the story to make a fast buck. And here's Lodi's own Hansen poking fun at diplomacy and basically justifying ***another*** invasion based on lies - this time in Iran.
Furthermore, the situation is **not** one of leaving Israel alone; how about Israel stop with its territorial expansion agenda i.e., the entire ME? Not to mention this whole mess has nothing to do with religion. There are plenty of Jews who are as fed up with the Zionist Likud party in Israel as there are Christian Republicans who are fed up with the neocons here in the U.S.
The charge of anti-semitism that gets brought up whenever Israel's atrocities are mentioned or the fact that Israel can take care of herself - militarily and financially - without the help of the U.S. is nothing more than a political PR propaganda push wrapped in religion and designed to deflect criticism of the STATE of Israel's policies to those pointing them out.
It does not involve religion nor does it really involve Semites - unless you're discussing the Palestinians - it is POLITICS. Period. The sooner people realize that, the better off they'd be. "
marzo2008 wrote on May 28, 2008 12:14 PM:
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 9:12 AM:
papercut wrote on May 28, 2008 9:03 AM:
girard74 wrote on May 28, 2008 8:51 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.