Pangloss

This has come up many times in discussions here at SFN -- the question of whether western nations are politically capable of putting their standard of living at a lower tier of importance than the problem of global warming. I realize this is a complex question that is not easily answered with a simple example like the one I'm giving here, but I think it does form an indication of how far we're willing (or unwilling) to go. Economic crisis to delay other Obama goals The key point here being that even a Democratic president, presiding over a Democratic congress, with no possibility of partisan veto and almost no possibility of partisan filibuster, still believes that it cannot pass even a simple restriction on carbon emissions. This believe is not based on political resistance, mind you, but is instead predicated on a notion that it is too expensive to pursue at this time. Now as I said this is a complex issue -- the current economic crisis IS very severe, and this does not say that people are unwilling to ever lower their standard of living to ANY degree for the sake of fixing global warming. But given that most people are not looking for work (93%), most people are paying their mortgages on time (94%), and gas prices are down, it really does beg the question of what economic conditions WOULD be appropriate for tackling the problem. Would the same politicians be willing to undermine a period of economic SUCCESS in order to tackle Global Warming? My personal opinion is that we (now I'm talking about America specifically here) should pursue emissions reduction in spite of the economic crisis. Perhaps not in Obama's first 100 days, but definitely in his first year in office. (I think it's also worth noting that even if he's not pursuing emission reduction, he will be pursuing alternative energy as PART of his economic recovery plan, and that helps with GW in the long run.) What do you all think?

Netflix has it on their "watch it now" feature, so you can watch it online for free if you have a subscription there.

Well maybe, but we don't 'report news' in the politics forum; new thread starts should include a position statement for debate. If you want to take a political position you can start a new thread; I'll move this one to general. Thanks. Ayup. Sad, isn't it?

Was there a political aspect to this that you wanted to discuss? Otherwise it might be better served in the General Forum. It's an interesting ship -- the last of the Nimitz class supercarriers, which have had trouble keeping up with the times. The next one, the Gerald Ford, is a new class. They really are amazing -- I got a tour of the Nimitz back in 1985 when a friend served on her. The word "big" just doesn't even come close.

That's understandable, especially given how often the government (or at least specific people in it) have abused the public trust. Skepticism is a good thing and we can certainly agree to disagree on specific instances of public efforts taking precedence over private ones. That's how it should be -- the government should always be under scrutiny.

Strangers, not market factors, decide what roads you can drive on, what safety features your car has installed on it, where your house can be built, and what beef you can eat. There is a difference between removing market determination for public safety and to avoid the Tragedy of the Commons with public assets, and removing market determination because corporations are greedy and we want everyone to get paid the same. All of these things are controlled by the government only after market forces failed to address the problems they represent. That change represents pragmatism, not ideology.

No it wasn't. The term "socialized medicine" refers to a conversion of the entire healthcare system, e.g. the British National Health Service. I understand your point, but what that glosses over is the fact that opponents to "socialized medicine" aren't necessarily opposed to every single measure that looks even remotely like it. At any rate, flu shots don't count anyway, since the government actually purchases them from private enterprise.

He must be dipping into the Ayn Rand again.

Maybe it's true, maybe it's not. But bascule you've been posting one-sided conspiracy theories since you started in on this subject, and I have to say it's getting a little old. But hey, I'm glad you see now that it's just a report, and not a fact.

It's not socialism. This is no different from what we've always done regarding infrastructure, it's just on a larger scale and with a different motivation behind the timing. When Bureau of Labor orders me to go build computers for Dell, then it's socialism.

Stop voting for zombies. Duh.

Oh please, GAZA doctors say the Israelis committed an atrocity, and that gets reported as fact?! Geez. Bascule, if Israel complies with the new cease fire and Gaza does not, what do you suggest happen then?

There's been a lot of violent back-and-forth, but Hamas and Hezbollah are governments now, duly elected, and thereby required to behave as such. Or else. And that's the crux of it, not "the people have spoken, it's just that democracy didn't give us what we wanted", or any other form of placing the blame on the west. If they want to be part of the company of nations then they have to behave like they do. Or else. We have to make it clear to people like that that violence isn't an option, and they can't just lob a few grenades anytime they're not getting what they want. When it all boils down to brass tacks, there's civilized behavior, and there's regime change. That's it.

Yes, just like a certain incoming president plans to do. In a couple of years we're going to be looking back at that and calling Bush "Obama Lite".

No, I'm supporting his position in spite of my nervous concerns. Need to work on the ol' reading comprehension skills there, lil' buddy. Half that, but yeah with the unbudgeted expenses of Iraq and Afghanistan I believe that's correct. But as Phi mentioned I believe only about 200-250 billion could realistically (both politically speaking as well as actual capabilities) be cut. In fact I think that kind of figure is a liberal wet dream -- I doubt we'll see a quarter of that actually happen. In fact I'll be amazed if 200 billion is cut from the whole 2010 budget. We should run a poll on that, like a betting poll. Might be fun. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, just as a side note, I realized as I was writing the above that if we do manage to pull out of Iraq in 2009 our actual expenditures would drop a good bit faster. In fact the cut in expenses from departing Iraq could easily exceed the actual program budget cuts from the 2010 budget. That would be a somewhat ironic twist to the old complaint about unbudgeted expenditures -- we wouldn't really notice the improvement, because it never showed up on an actual budget! (lol) Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedInteresting bit of perspective as I run screaming out the door, ridiculously late: http://www.coshoctontribune.com/article/20090108/NEWS01/901080302

I don't see this exercise helping Israel politically at all. Hamas isn't going to back down and their excessive use of force makes them look bad in the eyes of others. That's not to say I'm sympathetic to Hamas... I'm not, but I don't see this invasion helping Israel politically. It already has. Governmental leaders around the world are setting aside the initial UN condemnation and coming around to at least an "equal support" position on this issue. The article below talks about European leaders rallying around Israeli officials last week. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0108/p01s02-woeu.html The same thing happened here in the US -- initially we voted with the UN Security Council to condemn Israel's response. Now we're putting them on equal footing, and Obama has made a similar statement. Also, I have to say that their response is clearly not "excessive", because as you point out above, the rocket attacks haven't stopped. Modern warfare isn't magic and Hamas is deliberately putting civilians in harm's way, so in my opinion the "excessive" adjective is being aimed in the wrong direction there. I think that the idea that a return to the previous status quo is an acceptable thing to do because the rocket attacks are less severe than the Israeli response is a very dangerous one. If diplomacy cannot resolve the current situation then it surely cannot stop the rocket attacks either. But it CERTAINLY can't stop them without international attention, and now that attention exists.

The story today that the deficit will top $1.2 trillion was bad enough, but the accompanying story from the Obama camp that this will likely be the case for years to come was a tough pill to swallow. The budget is only (only?) $3 trillion, so we're talking about spending another 50% on top of that. Yowsa. But aside from a couple hundred million in Defense spending (if you're lucky), what can really be cut? Most of the programs in place are either employing people (at a time when layoffs are ill advised) or help the economy in some indirect way. I think we're on the right track, scary as the numbers are. The hard part's actually going to be trimming the budget down to size once the economic crisis is over. We're not very good at recognizing economic upturns on the political side, and we're AWFUL when it comes to cutting government programs (have ANY ever been cut?). What do you all think? Some articles: Record Deficit Forecast as Obama Weighs Options (New York Times): http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/842256.html Soaring Deficit May Post Threat to Obama Stimulus Plan (Miami Herald): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/business/economy/08deficit.html?em

Yes it is. And it's working. Not physically, but rather politically. The problem is that people actually found the previous situation acceptable. It wasn't acceptable, but that's international politics for you -- if it's not dramatic, nothing will be done about it. So is the real fault for those children's deaths yesterday Israel's, or is it Hamas's, and perhaps the UN's, yours, and mine, for not doing anything about the situation? --- BTW, I have to say, that proportionality argument (see Bombus's post above, and plenty of news stories) really irks me. What a frustrating line of reasoning that is. That's actually saying that as long as both sides kill the same number of each other, everything is okay! What kind of freaky argument is that? How can that possibly be okay?

The families of the people killed by those missiles would seem to suggest otherwise. That seems inconsistent with your message. I thought you wanted peace at all costs? Anyway I don't know why proportionality is important. Murder is murder. Is there a specific number of murders that's okay?

Democrats changed their minds on this and decided to seat Burris, doing lots of photo ops this morning. There was a story out of Chicago by a local TV station this morning that Burris turns out to be connected to Blago after all, in the form of campaign contributions followed by hundreds of thousands of dollars of state business. But there was no indication of a Senate seat buyoff and the story was only picked up by Fox News Channel. Most of the media seems to be ignoring it and there may not be much to it. I'm thinking the Democratic leadership realized it was kinda shooting itself in the foot here (in all sorts of ways) and just decided to let it happen. It's a small victory for Blago but it probably won't help him in the long run, and they don't look hypocritical in seating the guy, so they might as well do it.

I think just because the overall balance was virtually 50-50, that doesn't mean that each categorical subset will be 50-50. But I also think it's reasonable to ask questions. It was reasonable when Democrats asked questions in 2000, and it's reasonable for Republicans to ask the same questions now. Drawing conclusions, of course, is another matter, but I don't care if it's the "stoner effect" or they're all "molesting cattle" (wow, nice bit of flame baiting there... oh yeah, that wasn't aimed at anyone here, so it's not) instead of voting. All I care about is that the vote is fair.

Israel's action is not pre-emptive, it's self-defense. I don't have issue with the larger point you're making, but I think you undermined it with such an absolutist position as to say that it's always wrong if any civilians are killed whatsoever. That position never allows defense. But your point that we need to behave like adults and bring parties to the table is fine, I agree with that. But you're more persuasive (at least with me) when you set aside the conspiracy theories and the war-is-always-wrong absolutism, IMO.

Apparently I'm not allowed to express my opinion. It was clearly not aimed at anyone here, so who are the real flamebaiters? Rofl.

Of course you can. Accepting civilian losses to get to the bad guys when they're being deliberately placed in the way is a political choice, not an ethical dilemma.