Pangloss

Consider the source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483477,00.html Which of course Fox News Channel digests to mean the following: (sigh)

I wish I could get no incoming calls for a month and a half. Bliss.

You may find this page helpful: http://www.play-hookey.com/digital/binary_subtraction.html

There is some awful pork in that bill, I'm afraid. Doubling the Department of Education's budget, for example, is clearly an ideological move, not an economic one (and not a trivial one either, at $160 billion). Some of the criticism from Republicans is accurate and relevant, just as other parts of it are partisan grandstanding. I hate to say it, but this may just be the best we could really hope for. In spite of Republican refusal to cooperate on the voting, I think it does represent compromise government at its realistic best.

Aren't they already almost doing that? Of the $825 billion, over $250 billion is in tax cuts that the Republicans wanted but the Democrats didn't. The complaint from Republicans was that they couldn't raise that amount to a higher value.

An old bump (sorry), and we apparently never even discussed this issue, but I thought it interesting that this became the first piece of legislation signed by Barack Obama this morning. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/29/AR2009012901887.html

http://measurementlab.net/ Network performance testing tools, ala DSL Reports. One of the tools lets you test to see if your ISP is blocking BitTorrent traffic, for example. Others let you test to see if your traffic is being prioritized, or if certain applications are given degraded performance. Looks interesting but it's a bit slammed at the moment due to featuring on Google News, Slashdot and other sources. Might have to give it a day or two to settle down.

Wow. Good call. Forget the scumbag, I'm guessing you wouldn't have liked what killing him would've done to you, or, god forbid, your daughter. I'm glad you were able to get out of that situation safely and peacefully.

Yup, now we see one picture of an overturned stroller and it's a race to see how fast we can appease the nearest religious zealot or half-baked dictator. This is the consequence of a world that is informed and educated by the axiom "if it bleeds, it leads".

Here's another cool look at the inauguration using Microsoft Photosynth. http://photosynth.net/inauguration.aspx

If you'll pardon a little random mussing, in one sense I don't think there's been a failure. It took millions of years to climb out of the sludge, who knows how long it will take to put our violent natures behind us? Getting over religious obsessions is just a small part of that... shall we give it 10- or 15,000 more years? Seriously, we do seem to obsess sometimes (myself included) about getting things done during our puny lifetimes. But I agree with the question even so, because we certainly won't get the job done sitting around and waiting for history to run its course! To that end, this is an interesting question for discussion, because it actually allows for the settlements in the occupied territories to remain (more or less) intact. On the other hand it more or less eliminates the Jewish state (which in my opinion isn't necessarily a bad thing, being a flawed idea to begin with).

I think it's even simpler than that. The world hasn't yet learned that some things are more important than the latest body count.

Fair enough -- it remains. I meant to acknowledge your point earlier, so let me amend my error now. The inquiry appears to be legitimate. But I'm not at all convinced that this whole "white phosphorus" business isn't just an overreaction to normal smoke grenades or whatnot -- special interest groups trying to find something extra evil to pin on the group that caused a surge in violence.

Well that principle (while IMO a poorly reasoned oversimplification) may be applicable, but note that it doesn't help the prosecution's case a whole lot. It actually puts more pressure on the prosecution than the defense, assuming the goal if the tribunal is actually justice rather than retribution. For example, in the case of an order to drop a bomb on a populated area, you'd have to prove that the dropping of that bomb would be in violation of the law (whatever law ended up being applied). Presumably you'd have to prove that the bomb wouldn't hit its target and that it would kill or injure civilians. And both the order-giver and the order-implementer would have to have access to this information. Also, you can't decide after the fact what's legal and what's illegal. If it's a judgment call, then they obviously cannot make soldiers scapegoats. I haven't seen evidence of this but if that were true then it would be wrong, and subject to prosecution, IMO. Palestinian testimony requires objective corroboration on this subject, btw. (Like that bit on 60 Minutes -- that piece was irrelevant until it showed the two Israeli soldiers hiding in the staircase.)

Way cool. http://www.gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=15374&window_height=822&window_width=1664 +10 if you spot Carmen Sandiego.

Well that's not good. There's a serious lack of detail in that story. I want the two-hour Frontline version -- right f'ing now, dangit. But yeah, they absolutely have the right to make their own determinations here in terms of prosecutions, and they deserve the full and complete available information. I hope they were given everything that was available. This country doesn't need another 18.5 minute gap.

Yes, quite true. And I have great admiration for those who have to produce justice in politically charged circumstances, and no reason at all to think that in a case of American soldiers such judges could only be Americans.

Exactly. So here's the problem -- if what you just said is true, that most would agree with the logic that the guys on the ground shouldn't have to pay over the larger socio/political/ideological questions being raised here, then it actually brings it right back to the original question of whether this is really about politics. In my opinion there are some objectively valid reasons to be at least asking whether this is a malicious, retributive, ideological, or otherwise political move. It isn't as if a routine inspection of military records suddenly turned up a big surprise that was brought forward only reluctantly by some JAG lawyer who was saddened by what he found -- the timing, the parties involved, and the lack of any mention of Hamas prosecutions all suggest a political motivation. That may be circumstantial evidence, but it's not even denied -- they brag about it. Mr. Hamas Spokesman says, "Look over here, we've got Amnesty International backing us up! And never mind the terrorist behind the curtain." And if my concerns are valid then this also points directly to why the US doesn't want to (and shouldn't) join the ICC.

"Hang on, I'm going to try something."

Heh, it actually sounds like you just said "it's not about politics... it's about politics"! But if I'm reading you right (and please correct me if I'm wrong) I think what you're suggesting is that it's a matter of attacking Israel's strategic/tactical choices in the Gaza conflict, rather than a predisposition to judge Israel in the wrong. Yes? If that's correct then I actually agree with that, having pondered your point and given the subject in general some more thought. I may not agree with their position but I see the point -- it's certainly the sort of thing that international courts (both of law and of public opinion) can and should look at (though I find it hypocritical when they don't cast the same jaundiced eye towards Hamas -- but again, two wrongs don't make a right). But what I was actually trying to focus on here is fairness in prosecuting the men and women who had to execute that policy. While one could say that they should question their orders, etc, the fact remains that if the "atrocity" in question was a subtle and debatable point, the sort of thing academics and lawyers will debate for years, then the prosecution of the soldiers following those orders on a battlefield seems wrong to me. Put another way, unless it can be demonstrated that the individual soldier being prosecuted SHOULD have been able to make a distinction between a valid order and the one he was given, in a clear and unassailable manner, and had the opportunity to do so, then he cannot and should not be prosecuted. Without that distinction, such a prosecution would constitute an act of political retaliation, not an act of justice. Wouldn't you agree?

Apparently groups like Amnesty International and even some governments are calling for Israeli soldiers to be prosecuted for war crimes. Not once amidst all of this hullabaloo does anyone even remotely suggest the same treatment for Hamas terrorists. Now I am not one to ever suggest that two wrongs make a right. Certainly if any member of the Israeli military deliberately committed some atrocity, then they should absolutely be prosecuted for it. But we all know what this is really about, don't we? This is about Israeli policy. Specifically the policies of dropping bombs on civilian areas that Hamas terrorists were hiding in, and/or the use of white phosphorous. Now how is THAT the fault of the soldiers who carried out their orders? And by the way, isn't this just further confirmation of why it would be a bad idea to join the International Criminal Court ourselves? Every time the world uses that stage to make political statements, it undermines the credibility of the very idea of impartial international war crimes trials. Some background: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-gaza26-2009jan26,0,2328336.story

They must be crazy. Everyone knows you can't run a starship without Miles O'Brien. (Well SOMEBODY had to say it.)

Perhaps a semantics problem, not so much for the definition of "order" (or if you prefer, "nod of approval"), but for what constitutes "credit". It's not a program that Obama started, but he certainly authorized its continuation. That makes him directly responsible for the repercussions of continuing this policy in the face of Pakistani opposition (remember, they don't LIKE this). Not only does he get credit for that, he's made a statement that's been heard by every diplomat and politician in the world. That doesn't mean he's about to turn into George Bush, even in the eyes of observers like Iran. But they are watching, and they know full well who authorized this attack. No question. (My only objection to the OP was the "about time" comment. This was an Obama move, for sure, but it wasn't anything new.)

Oof.

Used to be you could get a high-paying IT job just for knowing how to reset a user's password. Those days are looooooooooooooong gone.