Pangloss

I agree that there's an aspect of this that we demanded these changes as a society, cheered them when they were made, took advantage of the debt culture, and then cried foul when it came back to haunt us. I read a thread on another board the other day that was all about how this happened because the lending institutions were forced by law to lend to people who couldn't pay. As if! The thing is, I think there's enough of a gray area there that you can really say that there's room for both sides to be correct. You CAN produce a society in which hard-working people can buy a home and build a successful life for themselves, and not get swamped with debt they can't afford. We just need to find the right balance between regulation and freedom.

I like it.

Interesting story yesterday on press coverage of Sarah Palin. The McCain camp has tried to keep her more or less away from reporters, I guess on the theory that they're not going to get any good coverage from the press. And hey, I guess that's not hard to understand. I mean lets face it, the only Sunday show she's likely to do anytime soon is the kind that begins with a prayer! But the press is hopping mad about the lack of access, and that's not hard to understand either. She's given a grand total of three near-worthless interviews (one of them with Sean Hannity!), and basically the press corps has been reduced to simply shooting her photo ops. They're feeling a bit abused. All together now: "Awwwwww!!!!" But seriously, I'm no fan of the press ("Gee, really Pangloss? Do tell!"), but if I were them I wouldn't play the campaign's game either. Apparently this latest row started when the press was told they could have reporters in the room when she met the Afghan president, but they got something like 29 seconds of presence in the room and were then ushered out without being allowed to ask any questions. I agree with CNN -- pull the reporters and let other outlets cover Palin's photo ops. I'm sure other major outlets would follow suit, and very soon her press pool would consist of reporters from the Jesus rags, Women's Wear Weekly and The Onion. Sounds about right. What do you all think? Couple articles: http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0908/More_on_Palin_press_protection.html http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/23/media-presses-mccain-campaign-for-access-to-palin-meeting/ http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/09/23/politics/fromtheroad/entry4470968.shtml http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/09/23/palin-now-afraid-to-be-in-the-same-room-as-a-reporter.aspx

Sounds like Harris might've read that amusing Maureen Dowd piece in the New York Times the other day featuring an Aaron Sorkin-penned scene depicting a meeting between Obama and Sorkin's fictional president from The West Wing (played by Martin Sheen). Partisan as heck, but it had a hillarious bit about elitism that had me in stiches for hours. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=2&em&oref=slogin&oref=slogin Here's a quote that's somewhat peripheral to the elitism angle but which had the best line from the whole piece: Ouch! Sorkin sure has a way with words.

Are there any conditions that are generally accepted by the scientific and medical community to be "diseases" that have no physical causes whatsoever? I.E. if a patient is crazy due to having a screwed-up home life as a kid, as opposed to a specific injury or genetic disorder in the brain, is it still considered a disease?

No, that really was a new one on me. And I've seen all the big counter-culture movies, too! Heck, I was even conceived in the "summer of love". Go figure.

It is a big deal, they do have varying degrees of intelligence, and it's not about makeup. I wouldn't have a problem with banning testing for makeup products. But the same ridicule applied two posts above could just as readily be applied to animal rights advocates. That doesn't constitute an argument. This issue is a non-starter, relegated to extremists and crackpots. It doesn't fail to get taken seriously because people want their hair care products and don't care about animals, it fails to be taken seriously because of the obvious human health benefits and because the care issue isn't actually that serious, especially when compared with the beef industry or other problems faced by society. In short, we have bigger fish to fry. So to speak.

Android launched today with its first phone from T-Mobile. The buzz is somewhat lackluster, mainly because they lack many of the hardware features of iPhones. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1247938204

I'll be darned. Thanks for the info.

Gotta love that quote from the boy's father. (rofl) Of course, if the shirt had said "McCain was behind 9/11" then he would have been paraded in downtown Boulder. As it is I guess he'll have to settle for a prayer breakfast in Colorado Springs. You guys really do get both extremes out there! What's this "Patchouli-smelling"? That's a new one on me. Some sort of 1960s thing? I agree it was a bad week for McCain. He actually just about lost any remaining chance he had for my vote once I fully parsed and understood the Palin selection, but now he just seems petty and underhanded to me. I don't understand his campaign at all. It's actually less optimistic and motivational than Bush's campaign in 2000, which at the time I actually found sensible and inspirational (I ignored the negativity aimed at Gore, blaming it on external groups -- just one of the many things I learned I was wrong about later on). I've been somewhat in Obama's camp for a while now, but even so it's a tough pill to swallow, being a fan of McCain-the-maverick for a long time. I think I better understand now some of the complaints raised early on by moderate liberals about how they used to respect McCain but no longer do. I've dropped my early idea of rubbing their noses in their earlier statements about how McCain was "the only Republican they'd ever vote for". Just my opinion, though; I'm sure others see it differently. I still think Obama and his fans need to stay above the sort of thing the McCain camp has been doing, so that we can somehow try and move the country past partisanship over the next few years.

The veto pen was a factor in cutting defense spending, but when it comes to social spending (the far greater budget item) his veto pen actually increased spending that Republicans were trying to cut, such as with the Personal Responsibility act. They did manage, however, to find common ground eventually and end the decades-long tradition of endless welfare checks in this country. It's unfortunate that entitlement spending has actually gone up since then. I could be wrong, but I don't know of any social programs proposed by Republicans during that era that would have increased spending but which were vetoed by Clinton. That would seem counter-intuitive as well. But by all means, if you know of any, please pass it along. You're right, Republicans did have a majority for most of that time. I apologize for the misleading post. The important point I wanted to make was that Congress plays a strong, equally-primary role in the budget, not to let Bush off the hook. I'm glad we agree on this.

Well I appreciate the link, but Williams is a kind of intellectual partisan, somewhat the conservative equivalent of Paul Krugman at the New York Times. It's no mistake that he's a frequent guest host for Rush Limbaugh. He's right in pointing out congress's role, but he goes too far the other way, suggesting that the president is not responsible for fiscal policy.

Why does this chart ignore the makeup of Congress? Could it be the chart-makers don't want people to notice that Congress was controlled predominantly by Democrats during the steep climbs under Reagan and the two Bush's, and controlled predominantly by Republicans during the steep decline under Clinton? Hello, is partisanship really THAT hard for people to spot? Gee maw, a web site says it's so, therefore it must be so! Gee maw! You folks should be smart enough to know by now that it takes TWO parties to spend THAT kind of money. One to hold the teat and the other to cover up your eyes. They just swap the jobs back and forth, that's all. (I think I'm gonna make that my new catch phrase whenever somebody posts something glaringly partisan. "Gee maw!")

You know, I just realized something. President Clinton's oft-lambasted statement from his final State of the Union message, about how the government should invest in the stock market, doesn't seem quite so ludicrous now. line[/hr] US News has an interesting piece analyzing the political situation surrounding the upcoming bill to spend $700 on a bailout agency. The piece looks at various other media articles and analysis and kinda tallies everything up. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080922.htm Some interesting quotes:

I scored a 12. Good job Klaynos and Sayo! Fascinating test! I can't wait to show this to some of my students. Some of those shadings are INCREDIBLY subtle. Reminds me a lot of this famous optical illusion:

The specific definitions for these terms are not universal. However, in general it's probably safe to say that a "software architect" is a programming position, whereas "software designer" may be more of a marketing or consulting type of position. That's not to say that the "designer" is less talented and they may very well be a programmer, but they may be more focused on matching the company's technical capabilities with the customer's needs, especially before the sale, whereas the "architect" is more concerned with carrying out the customer's instructions. Or, again depending on the company, a "designer" may not be related to customer consulting at all, but may instead focus on usability and interface design, capabilities and feature sets, and/or documentation. Or it may be something completely different.

I believe there's a checkbox for that. Go to Internet Options (run IE, tap and release the ALT key and then pull down the Tools menu -- it's at the bottom), then go to the Advanced tab and check all the options there. One of them may be having an impact on your situation.

Yes, well, consider the source. At any rate, the article asks the question; it doesn't offer an answer.

As I understand it, they came back to their neighborhoods, but the violence has not returned at this point in time. But yes, we've already agreed here that the Surge was not by itself responsible for the decrease in violence, though it was a major (arguably the major) factor.

China has the second-largest economy in the world, generating on the order of seven trillion US dollars, or roughly half the size of the US economy. With roughly 300 million people in its middle class, about the same as the number of people in the entire US, that suggests that their per-capita productivity is still developing. And there are over a billion people who have yet to contribute. The Chinese don't just have money. They're reinventing the word.

Interesting article at CBS News about a new poll run by the Associated Press and Yahoo. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/20/politics/main4462623.shtml The gist of it is that the pollsters set out to see if racism might explain why Obama isn't soaring over McCain in the polls right now, given all the factors at work against Republicans at the moment. That in itself is seen by many as a loaded question, or perhaps even an indication of media bias, but I think it's based on a lot of non-partisan factors and therefore a legitimate question. At any rate, that's the question they asked, and some of the results were interesting. Interesting. They're not saying there are no racists amongst Republicans, they're saying it doesn't matter because they wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway. Therefore a small percentage of Democrats who may be racist is more relevant. And more importantly, perhaps, would be the number of racists amongst independents, since they're the ones most likely to decide an election these days anyway, given how motivated the "bases" are. I'm still not convinced that racism is a factor in this election, but this reasoning makes basic sense to me. What do you all think?

I do confront the issues, Phil. And if that's the better way to go, then why are you using a personal attack instead of confronting the issue of this thread? If you have something to say about this issue, say it and leave me out of it. Otherwise I invite you to take up whatever your problem with me is in PM.

I can understand your frustration at that. To be fair, though, just because he received lobbying money from those two organizations doesn't mean he was looking the other way. That's one of the more insidious aspects of K Street, the fact that the money can't be directly tied to specific instances of influence and decisions.

I appreciate that, but I'll just add that I understand what bascule was saying and I agree that the report would be questionable under those circumstances. The connection between the 3-50 miles data and the oil-sex scandal is not one I'd heard before, so I appreciate it being passed along. It's interesting and it's relevant. But it only supports the point that Republicans are wrong not to accept this compromise. It does not support the point that drilling should not occur closer than 50 miles. We need more information to address that issue.

With the economy struggling and public opinion very much in favor of government intervention, and both candidates supporting some degree of intervention, I can't help but wonder if we're headed towards some new version of the New Deal, at least in terms of massive government spending programs and new regulations for the financial sector, which has become so important to average Americans due to mortgage financing, educational lending and retirement planning. The Bush administration is talking about a whole new agency devoted to bailouts and management of government-owned corporations -- something we would not have even dreamed of in this country just a year or two ago (but today taxpayers own 80% of AIG!). The libertarian side of me thinks this is all insane, but the centrist part of me wonders if it may in fact be necessary in order to maintain the kind of calm, progressive economy we all seem to want. Our tolerance for pain has become very small, and the financial sector has grown so large that maybe we NEED better regulation of it. Isn't slow, regular growth better than rapid growth with massive, random setbacks? What do you all think?