Pangloss

iNow obviously drug companies don't keep people in seclusion for long-term testing. You said they keep them for days at a time, fine, then they're out the door doing their own thing, unobserved. Don't put forth like they have complete control when even you are *STATING* that they do not. As for the ridicule, I don't care why you're doing it, just stop doing it.

Obviously those rigorous conditions don't apply to all pharmaceutical testing. But even when it does it just proves my point -- you've severely restricted the variables in a way that by definition differs the testing environment from reality. On the subject of meanness, I don't care what you're inclined toward. Appeal to ridicule is not a scientific approach either. And there's not a single member here who doesn't comprehend the fact that these arguments are as much about what you're willing to accept as they are about what Lance is willing to accept.

Don't be rude, IA. I agree that is science, and I think the same thing happens with economics and environmental modeling. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the models aren't science, I'm just suggesting that economics deserves a little bit more respect. I recognize the commonly accepted technical/academic distinction that makes economics not "science" per se, but that doesn't mean economists can't take a scientific approach when creating an economic model. In pharmaceutical testing they minimize, eliminate or ignore the variables they don't have any control over, such as, oh I don't know, how about whether or not the patient actually swallows the pills you give them, or whether they were honest about their medical backgrounds or other drugs they're taking. Not to mention stuff they may not even be aware of (environmental factors, dietary considerations, accidental overdose, etc etc etc). So, as with economic models, we have to take those early studies with a grain of salt. And the same can be said of environmental models -- even those who create and run them express their limitations for the record. They're not reality. They're only as good as their assumptions. That doesn't mean they're wrong.

I recognize the technical definition of science, but if human unpredictability rendered science to be non-science then we'd have to toss most of medicine on the scrap heap as well. Just look at all the early drug testing that gets turned upside down by more detailed testing after the product hits the market. Just because something is difficult to predict doesn't mean there's no value in limiting the variables and testing on that basis anyway. And if we can do that with medicine and the environment and learn something, then we can also do it with economics and learn something. And in all three cases you take the result with a grain of salt, knowing that in the real world the variables aren't limited like they are in the experiment.

Under the watchful eye of a Zeiss Mark VI overhead projector?

For the record, I have not "passed judgment" on this movie. I've asked a question and commented on Maher's stated position on the same subject. My point was not to stop people from seeing the movie; on the contrary, I strongly encourage people to see all controversial documentaries. I am Michael Moore's biggest defender, at least in so far as his right to create them is concerned. It is comedy. It's also a message. That's what Bill Maher says, anyway. (Discussed earlier in thread.)

I assume economic models can fail regardless of the unpredictability of human behavior. Incorrect calculation of predictable economic pressures and external causes (natural disasters, etc). Am I wrong?

And Maher DOES have a reputation for lies, spin and hypocrisy on this subject. That was the point I was trying to make earlier.

The Post has stepped forward for Obama, and it's an unusually nuanced and insightful endorsement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/16/AR2008101603436.html Couple good quotes: It's also quite long and detailed. Check it out. I think they made some really fascinating points in there. It feels very much like my own sentiments.

I think that bit about "hindering development of even better alternatives" is something you hear with oil as well (e.g. when gas is cheap), and I guess that's a valid concern, but that's something I think we have to blame on our reactionary, emotional, event-driven system of government. Pressure from special interest groups, for example, only gets you a little bit of progress. In this case the decades-long barrage hasn't produced abundant wind or solar energy, so if that was their motive they failed miserably. If anything it's contributed to keeping us in oil. Answer: Smarter people in government.

The 4th item I get when I google that is a blog item about the Oregon Senate race. Google's funny that way, it shifts and changes frequently. I think I found it, though: http://www.victoriataft.com/2008/10/mortgage-crisis-and-illegal-aliens.html She doesn't make the assumption that they didn't do everything they could to pay those mortgages back, and that seems like a big stretch to me, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. It doesn't make sense to me because it's not as if we throw people debter's prison anymore. Why would an illegal alien have to flee the country? Then you're retracting your statement that it was a "misconception" on my part. Got it, thanks.

Yah I don't understand the name thing, bascule. What difference does it make if he uses his middle name instead of his first name? Seriously, guy, that's a pretty odd criticism.

Yeah it's unfortunate that sort of reply doesn't really work with the crowd that favors ACORN theories. Those people already consider McCain a sellout to the left. I've thrown it at a few moderates, though -- McCain also gave a speech at that event, if memory serves. Nice pic of Kendrick Meek, there -- right around the time he gave a commencement address for us, if I'm not mistaken. He represents the district on the south side of the one I'm in. I believe that's Republican Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart sitting on his left, who represents my district. (Diaz-Balart's employees stopped replying to my emails after I accused him of caving on the assault weapons ban issue after he personally promised me he would introduce a new bill after the election, which of course he did not. I'd show up at a town hall meeting and ask him about it, but I don't want to become Pangloss the Plumber!)

(Mod note: Apparently you can't have an all-caps subject line. Go figure. This thread is about the political group, not the nuts from oak trees. Lol.) We haven't talked much about ACORN here, and I suspect it's because we will mostly be in agreement with the basic issues. And I tend to avoid small-time political wranglings as beneath us, but with the Supreme Court issuing a ruling on the subject on Friday I think it merits a thread. For background, here's a link to the Wikipedia article on ACORN: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACORN In a nutshell (all puns intended), they're a special interest group advocating various social issues for the "working poor", etc. Generally aligned with Democrats and the left, they tend to register more Democrats than Republicans. This is considered acceptable in our society and there are lots of groups that do the same thing for the other side. ACORN has come under scrutiny recently because of registration efforts that apparently signed up dead people, celebrities from the wrong geographic areas, and so forth. Most if not all of the illegal registrations were apparently the work of overambitious personnel -- there's been no direct evidence of institutional policy within ACORN management to do this, so far as I have read or heard. Republicans charge that that is the case, however. But the Supreme Court apparently doesn't see evidence of institutional fraud either, ruling on Friday that election officials in Ohio did NOT have to review hundreds of thousands of new voter registrations in that state. The court's ruling was unanimous. Wall Street Journal article on the Friday SCOTUS ruling: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428556700546435.html?mod=googlenews_wsj In my opinion the whole thing is a little silly, because it's not as if Mickey Mouse or Margaret Thatcher would actually show up to vote on election day, and that fact also suggests that it was the errant action of a few rather than an institutional problem. Not that that ever stopped ANY political party from turning a molehill into a mountain. This is exactly the sort of thing Democrats did in 2000, and it annoyed Republicans then, but for some reason this time not so much. Gee, I wonder why. (Though I have to say it speaks well of that ostensibly "conservative" Supreme Court.)

It's a free country.

That's an ironic twist of a reply that alone makes this thread worthwhile. It doesn't counter a single aspect of global warming theory, supporting the notion of human contribution, and at the same time pointing out that human's aren't a major factor in GW. Which is probably why it was subsequently ignored, even though it undermines Lance's theory.

I wonder if he HAS done more interviews than Sarah Palin. (lol)

That was a riot. Very funny stuff. Thanks for passing it along. The McCain link on that site's a little messed -- it cuts off some very funny stuff at the opening, and the audio is a little unsynced. I found some better links and pasted them below. McCain Part 1: McCain Part 2: Obama Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5SWQJWm6Tg Obama Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJwcIogR1M

None of our business. I've started a separate thread on Joe, btw.

Okay here's the funniest story you will read regarding Joe the Plumber. It's the New York Times struggling to dish up some dirt on the guy. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/us/politics/17joe.html Oh my god, look at the smear! This guy is just a working stiff like the rest of us, he's not stumping for McCain! And yet here's the great and powerful NEW YORK TIMES hammering the guy for having a couple of liens or whatever. Hilarious! The far left is outraged over this guy, but I have no idea why. He's just a guy who wanted to ask a freaking question. The far left tried to tell us that we had to tolerate Cindy Sheehan's politics because she lost a son in Iraq, but it can't sit still for this guy because he had the audacity to actually ask a candidate a question. Heaven forfend! Check out this Diane Sawyer interview from Thursday morning: http://www.yahoo.com/s/971720 - Yes, I am registered to vote - No, I don't think people who make more should be taxed at a higher rate - Sure, it's cool that this happened - No, I will not be supporting either candidate at any rally, even though I've been asked - No, I will not tell you who I am voting for I watched that and I thought my god, there is hope for this planet yet. Not because I agree with his positions (I don't!), but just because I got a vibe of honest independence from the guy. Sure he usually votes Republican -- so what? He's refusing to campaign for McCain -- BULLY ON HIM. He had the audacity to ask Obama a direct question about his situation -- BULLY ON HIM. Joe makes me think there is hope for this country yet.

Three Mile Island and Chernobyl had some impact there, and remember that environmentalism was much less organized and coherent back in the 1980s, lacking the issue of global warming to rally around. I think it's something that with proper leadership could be brought into acceptance by the mainstream environmental community, especially if combined with a strong initiative on carbon emissions across the board and a token effort at "improving safety". There are some real issues that could probably be addressed as well, such as transportation of nuclear material (accident planning and preparation, etc), but it would mainly be giving them something to save face on. And the extremists can just be left spiking sequoias and crying in groups.

Prove it.

Copied to the Useful Politics Links thread.

I'm thinking I may need to put my foot down about threads that are started on false premises.

Okay that's fine, but I think we've answered that question. It is reasonable for any nation to control its border and set limits on immigration in order to ensure that there is not a sudden and crushing impact on its economy, legal system, etc. Which is why all developed nations do this, and in fact why all of them are more restrictive than ours.