Pangloss

Author Michael Crichton died Tuesday due to cancer. http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/11/05/obit.crichton/index.html?iref=mpstoryview Crichton was a mixed bag for science fans. Clearly he motivated and moved many people toward a greater appreciation for science and scientific principles. I'm sure there are many scientists today who were inspired by such novels as The Andromeda Strain or Jurassic Park, which have attained a certain degree of "classic" status. But he also drew criticism from many in science, in particular for his recent criticisms of global warming science, but also for his use of dramatization in his works. I always felt that his lessons were somewhat lost in what I called the "monsterization" of any science he felt was bad or dangerous. (Jurassic Park being the prime example -- the lesson seemingly that if you mess around with genetics you will have giant monsters roaming the streets before you know it.) But he had his supporters, and they were legion. Here's a quote from Steven Spielberg from the article above:

Exactly. I probably see that line in a different place than you do, but that's what I love about this new day -- we may move that line, but we're going to respect each other's opinions and reasons, and when we've finished moving it, we're both going to agree that it was the right thing to do. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about? (Yeah I know, I'm a hopeless optimist. Lol.)

I believe that's one of those classic unanswered constitutional questions, isn't it? That would be interesting.

Would you agree with me, iNow, that Obama supports the second amendment but also supports increased control/restrictions over firearms in this country?

Interesting. I would assume a slew of pardons on January 19th as well.

I've decided that I'm going to be okay with a Franken victory, and might even enjoy watching him in the Senate a bit, and I don't mean that in a sarcastic way. He'll have to learn the same hard lessons as any other senator, and he'll have to decide whether he's going to be effective (which means acknowledging and embracing some level of moderacy) or ineffective-but-true-to-his-extreme. That's the way it should be. Anyway he may not even get the chance. The articles I've read suggest that it's highly unlikely he'll survive the recount. But we'll see. --------------- On the subject of gay marriage, I was pretty shocked by the passage of so many measures and amendments on that issue in so many states. We passed one here in Florida as well, adding a definition against gay marriage to our constitution (I voted against it). I don't understand why that issue continues to resonate amongst so many voters. Maybe it's religion, I don't know. I just don't get that one.

To the above two posts: Exactly. This was the point I tried to make a few times during the (current) Bush administration, in talking about how sometimes it was worth it to challenge something so that it would play out and put us where we need to be. Warrantless wiretapping, torture, and military tribunals being the prime examples. I don't like them, I don't think they are right, but I'm glad they were "played out" so that we can get this country down on paper as standing against them, instead of having this crazy situation where nobody knows what's right and what's wrong. I don't think that's ALWAYS the way to go, we shouldn't *invite* trouble, but once trouble was upon us (9/11) it was a good idea to do make these things happen. In a sense we're "learning" from this "failed" Bush administration, and it's an important lesson. The lesson is NOT "don't vote Republican". It's not even "don't be evil". It's specific lessons on specific issues. (I'm a big fan of the concept of learn-through-failure, and see no reason why it can't be applied to countries. Why do things have to always be perfect? Just because we put a man on the moon we can never make mistakes? Nonsense.)

More happened last night to solve the problem of fatherless African American families than any other thing that's been done in the last 30 years. But it's worth recognizing that Democrats didn't get anything like the mandate they were looking for, falling far short of the projected gains in congress. This was a mandate for change, not a mandate for the Democratic party or liberalism, or for that matter a rejection of conservatism. This was a mandate for common sense and reason. Some things liberals are looking for will be realized. Some will not. Some things conservatives fear will happen, others will not. The thing conservatives need to realize is that the best lessons of the great movement of Ronald Reagan have not been forgotten. We didn't REJECT them last night, we STOOD UP for them. They should have found something familiar in last night's excitement, not something alien or incomprehensible or frightening. Similarly, if people out in the world saw this as a leap towards socialism and the far left then they were grossly mistaken, and we will show them the truth over the next few years. What they should see (and what I think most of our SFN members saw) is that this was a leap back to the center, towards moderacy and common ground and compromise and common sense.

Sign the new stimulus package being put forth by Pelosi and Reid.

Actually it was called later than that, right after he won Florida at around 11pm Eastern. He'd won VA and PA a couple hours earlier.

The Berg v Obama suit was dismissed for good reason -- it was a stupid, partisan thing. It wasn't dismissed because the process is perfect, Bascule. That doesn't mean the question of citizenship verification isn't a good one to ask, or that the process doesn't have holes in it. If the case pointed as discrepancies in the system, then they should be investigated and sealed. That says nothing about the current president-elect. It does not undermine his authority because we have moved on from that question.

Sorry, a little time had passed -- that was from the end of Obama's acceptance speech. I added an appropriate note to the post. CNN has the video here. You have to see this moment in video -- the way the crowd repeats his refrain -- it's just stunning. One of the most incredible moments I can remember in American politics. http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/11/05/sot.obama.victory.yes.we.can.cnn Couple other bits from the speech that really spoke to me:

Oh my god, that speech -- that SPEECH! OH my GOD! (From Obama's acceptance speech) Oh. My. God.

Indeed, an island of blue in a sea of red, but it appears that Florida was once again provided the critical moment (if only because Virginia and Ohio were already decided). An extraordinary concession speech by McCain, taking the time and having the respect to acknowledge the victor and pledge to support him, but also taking the time to recognize the historic moment. Jesse Jackson and John Lewis in tears tonight were big moments as well. What would their great leader and mentor have said or felt tonight?

In fact the AppStore makes it more likely that the iPhone will become dominant. It is an enabling technology because it limits choice in an environment where choice is detriment rather than an asset (e.g. security, confusion, etc). Microsoft participated in many anti-competitive practices along the path to Windows dominance, and many of those practices were seen at the time as minor, logical, and not anti-competitive, just as you've deemed Apple's practice here. Microsoft pursued them anyway and they contributed to Windows becoming effectively an monopoly. Now these practices are recognized as anti-competitive. At any rate you're certainly entitled to your opinion; perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree. But just to be clear I wasn't suggesting a lawsuit or government intervention. What I think is that part (A) (restricting apps) makes sense, but part (B) (disallowing competition) is a bad idea for both their product and for the industry in general. What I want to see now is for Google and Microsoft to show them that they've made a mistake by producing even better products. Apple has done a tremendous thing with the iPhone -- it's basically shown us what a mobile phone SHOULD be. Now we will really see what can really be done with these devices. I'm very excited about that. Believe me, the LAST thing I want is for the government to get in the way.

Use this thread for discussing the election results (not including the Senate races, which Bascule has started a thread for here). Ohio was just called for Obama by ABC at 9:25 Eastern so that would seem to more or less cement things for him, what with PA staying on the blue side.

Thanks, I'll take a look but at a glance I don't see anything specifically laying out a moderate case for Franken, which is what I'd be looking for. I should qualify my point a couple posts above by just saying that, like I suggested in post #4, I don't know anything about Coleman so I can't say that I would definitely vote for him ahead of Franken. If I lived in MN I'd have to take a serious look at it and I'll respect anyone who says they did look at both candidates and decided on Franken. I'm just somewhat aghast at the idea in general. I had a similar dilemma myself in my local House race, having to decide between a Republican incumbent whom I've ranted about many times, and a Democrat who was twice convicted of major felonies including bribery and racketeering, and was once caught on camera participating in a riot by clubbing a minor on the head! I couldn't bring myself to vote for the latter in spite of my anger with the former, but I can understand why he will get so many votes tonight and may even win. People aren't just ready for change. They're screaming for it at the top of their lungs.

I'm accusing him of being an ideological extremist who spends most of his time blaming one of the political parties for the world's ills. His show on Air America was directly comparable to that of Rush Limbaugh on the opposing side. Anybody who shudders at the thought of Rush Limbaugh as a United States Senator should have exactly the same immediate reaction to the notion of Al Franken as a United States Senator -- they are one and the same. Michael Moore is a similar animal.

Swansont, you're missing the key point. I agree that it would be unfair to force Apple to sell competing products, but I'm not actually suggesting that that be done. I'm just pointing out that it's anti-competitive for them to perform the following combination: (a) not sell competing products, and (b) prevent iPhone users from installing applications any other way. You're talking about (a), and you're right. I'm talking about (b), and I'm right. Capiche? Your Windows Mobile comparison is not appropriate, because you can install any application from any source on Windows Mobile -- it's just like Windows, in that it runs an executable from any source. A Microsoft version of the AppStore would be just an addition to a large number of options. On the iPhone there aren't any options. None. A more appropriate comparison would be if Microsoft were to do the following: 1) Create an AppStore for Windows. 2) Add a patch to Vista that prevented you from installing software any other way than their new AppStore. 3) Tell people the purpose of their AppStore was strictly for Windows security (preventing viruses). 4) Deny OpenOffice (for example) the right to sell through their AppStore. That's what Apple did here. Bascule mentions hacking above, but that's hacking, not normal software installation and use. He says it's not illegal; I was under the impression that it violated the user's agreement, but I could be wrong. Regardless, it's not normal operation and while it may be easy for tech-savvy folks like us it's certainly not the sort of thing a casual user will ever do.

Was the poll changed to make individual votes invisible? I thought about doing that but opted for a mod note instead, thinking that was kinda the point of the thread and as long as it's clear to the voters then it's probably okay, but it looks someone changed it.

I think Riogho should answer your question with a reference, but if memory serves he voted for a handgun ban as an Illinois legislator. The bill never passed. He's very arguably anti-gun, iNow, he's just balanced out by numerous moderate statements and a position in support of the recent Supreme Court decision against the D.C. ban. But I don't think there's any question he's in favor of far more stringent restrictions on handgun sale and ownership. I believe OnTheIssues has a collection of statements and votes from him on that subject.

Al Franken's Minnesota run is really annoying. Why would anyone want someone like Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh in the United States Senate? That Coleman fellow must have beaten up and old woman or something.

I don't think the weather's going to matter a whole lot this year. Especially not with 25% of the country having already voted.

No.

Right, but you'd expect that because it went for Kerry in 2004. It's really the only high-pop state where McCain has seen any sign of a reversal trend, which is why he spent so much time there, but as you say the polls suggest that that effort fell well short (whereas Obama has swung nearly all the swing states in the polls, plus a lot that nobody would have expected to swing given their 2004 votes). The point being if PA doesn't fall in that first hour nothing else really matters, and you can go to bed early. Another thing to observe, albeit for more academic reasons, is vote totals. 120 million people voted in 2004 (a record), but predictions run in the 145+ range. As happened in 2004, the loser could get more votes than the winner in the previous election (even if it's not all that close in the electoral college). Many states have warned voters that lines could go past 3 am Wednesday (the polls close at 7 in most states, but if you're in line at that time they have to let you vote). In particular this might happen in areas dominated by African American voters, who typically vote less frequently, and therefore polls typically have fewer machines (1/400+ voters instead of the typical 1/200 in white areas). (The numbers in the last two paragraphs are from ABC News tonight.)