Pangloss

Democrats seemed to blink over the issue of offshore drilling the last couple of weeks, but Republicans don't seem real happy about that. With Nancy Pelosi now supporting the so-called "Paris Plan", Republicans seem to be saying "er, wait a minute, don't give us what we asked for, we want to wait and ask for something else instead. http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-offshore15-2008aug15,0,5866232.story Amusingly, Pelosi seems to still be playing the no-beaches-for-oil card, grandstanding over the congressional federal restrictions and refusing an up-or-down direct vote on the issue. In an interview today she called it "a hoax on the American people". This from the same woman who earlier demanded that President Bush release oil from the national reserve. Hmm. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/15/MNCD12BC0J.DTL&type=politics While all this political posturing is taking place, the American people seem to be doing the only actual work on gas prices, cutting back their driving habits by amounts that can only be described as astronomical. Between that and the rising international value of the dollar (ironically amidst increasing global economic concerns based on faltering American growth!), the price of oil has fallen faster than anyone could have predicted. I think we should start a pool over which politician will be the first to declare that they "did something about the price of gas".

I've always thought those kinds of "it's not what happened, it's the WAY it happened" arguments were a waste of time. This one was particularly vapid.

Yes, I think people have a funny way of separate the message from the messenger on stuff like this. Many will see Corsi to be despicable, but still consider his message valid or at least worth considering. It's an unfortunate but very real aspect of the whole "swift-boating" technique. Regarding McCain, nothing of that magnitude. Historically there've been a few ugly things said his way over the years, regarding for example his confession while under torture as a POW, or actions during the awful Forrestal fire incident in 1967, which happened right underneath his plane (130+ dead and him without a scratch suggests stupid stuff in the minds of some fools). About the only thing substantive that's ever really stuck on him are the criticisms surrounding his temperament. But that's really more of a character issue (which I see it as a valid criticism that can be viewed as both a positive and a negative). The guy's a rare bird in politics -- someone who really seems to be what he seems to be. I'm sure there are folks looking for things to throw at him, though.

"Predict" = "potential outcomes", for these purposes. Certainly the scientists who did the work being reported on here want us to think so, iNow. This is clear from the story, but I would agree with you if you said they were playing that up a bit (or allowing the reporter to do so) for the laurels, though. The direct quotes from the researchers focus more on the search for a link between GW and hurricanes than any realistic predictability. Hurricanes are incredibly complex entities, so it's not surprising that it's going to be very hard to link something like global warming directly to hurricanes. Anybody who mouths off at this point about hurricanes being on the rise due to global warming needs to stop doing that, because they're just fear-mongering. We should all agree on this much, at least.

Jerome Corsi, who launched the swift-boating of John Kerry with his book "Unfit to Command", has begun the same process with his new book "The Obama Nation". (Speak the title out loud for the ugly double entendre.) Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times accuses him of racism: According to Mitchell (I haven't read the New York Times book review yet), the Times is reporting that a number of the book's charges are "unsubstantiated, misleading or inaccurate." Unlike with Kerry, there's a heavy religious angle in it this time around. In fairness, Obama has played up his faith to try and sway religious voters, but Corsi twists that in a pretty ugly way (according to Mitchell): Ouch. Here's another particularly ugly line, as reported by CNN: Wow. Probably the most serious charge in the book is the accusation that Obama was actually registered as a Muslim and behaved as a Muslim in the early part of his life. This is from the same CNN story: I'm not listening to radio at the moment but I have no doubt it'll be all over Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. Really unfortunate.

Some (generally pro-Georgia) see it as Russia struggling to maintain (or return to) superpower status trying to assert its authority over the region. Others (generally pro-Russia) see it as an example of protecting its citizens, since apparently most S. Ossetians are Russian passport-holders. The situation is clearly complex, and I completely agree that violence is not the answer. I also don't feel the US should take the forefront, because of its damaged reputation and perception of hypocrisy, but I do think we should do everything we can to bolster the EU and UN, as well as NATO, in resolving the situation peacefully. The humanitarian aid sent by the US today sounds like a step in the right direction.

I guess "forum shorthand" is the new colloquialism for "saving face by moving the goalposts". I'll have to remember that one. BTW, this story seems amusingly appropriate for this thread: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&ncl=1236368114 Apparently Russia and Georgia met in battle today -- in women's beach volleball. Oh dear. Apparently the press went crazy, and thonged-, er, I mean thronged the event. Gotta love the media. Caption: "Key negotiators discuss the status of Tskhinvali." At which point the Georgian server whipped out an AK-47 that she was hiding in her... nevermind... and "explained the political differences of the region" to her opponents. iNow, you thought Bush left the place where the action was in this war! Turns out he was in exactly the right place, just a couple days too early! (But seriously, it's sad that these athletes had to deal with this, but kudos to them for playing.)

Completely different subject. Your point was that Bush was playing around in Beijing instead of coming home and addressing the issue. Martin Sieff's point is that Bush's foreign policy has lead to the current situation, which I've never disagreed with you or them on. Nice try, though.

I changed the title back to the orig.

Well I consider blatant partisanship worthless and counter to our purpose here, but I've made appropriate adjustments to allow for both discussions. iNow can now continue to mirror the current offerings of Air America and Democratic Underground in this thread, and the Russia v Ossetia discussion can progress without a mind-numbing anti-Bush agenda.

I've heard it expressed both ways but I think it's the same answer. Proxima is thought to orbit Alpha, so you might say that the Alpha "system" is the nearest "system" to ours, with Proxima being the nearest actual star. Presumably that would change periodically as the rotation continues.

New thread opened. No more Bush-bashing, please.

Interesting. Kinda like a tag cloud. Cool.

Wow. That's almost as bad as some of the partisan straw men bascule was tossing around last week. Congratulations, you've executed another thread. Are you guys in league or something?

I already texted one Obama-supporting friend of mine (whom I knew was participating in this) saying that his VP pick was him (my friend's name).

As you may have heard, last week the Obama campaign announced that they would be announcing his VP choice via text message. Individuals can sign up for the text message here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/firsttoknow It is, of course, a novel new way to reach out with their campaign message, but one thing I wondered about it is whether we're going to see a sudden spate of fake Obama VP announcements, transmitted to famous but not-too-computer-savvy political analysts and reporters, perhaps from their very-tech-savvy friends. Could get interesting. I think it's a pretty clever campaign move. What do you all think?

Okay. To be blunt, I don't really see how today's 2:25 statement is any more substantive, since it is actually a lot shorter than his Ossetia-related comments over the weekend and contains the same points, including a demand for immediate cease fire, withdrawal, and return to the 8/6 status quo. But I can definitely understand how it "ripped the scab off old wounds". I can also see how you've touched on something relevant there, in terms of how a lot of people might see it. My only point is, whether you (and/or others) realize it or not, if there's nothing the guy can do that will rub you the right way, you really have to ask yourself if you're being fair. And if you're not being fair, others won't be fair either, and then how will we break the cycle of partisanship with this next president? But in fairness, sometimes I get a little caught up in my zeal for pointing out partisanship. Just because someone posts something that Rush Limbaugh has been saying doesn't mean they're pushing Rush Limbaugh's agenda -- they may be just PO'd. I'm cool with that, and I don't mind being reminded of that fact.

I've always liked the idea of online storage of bookmarks, but disliked the cumbersome nature of working with an online site or plug-in. Maybe it's time to take another look at it, though. Thanks.

Yeah I agree with DH. That was a nice reply, though, Mike. Thanks for taking the time.

"About damned time"? Only if you ignore the fact that he's already commented saying the exact same things several times. Isn't that the same sort of thing you're constantly harassing SkepticLance about doing -- ignoring people's posts and not responding when they answer you on point? Do you really think that nobody else will notice all my posts in this thread? I've already linked articles in which he condemned the invasion several days ago and even spoke to Putin in person before Putin even left Beijing. Several hundred MILLION Americans watched Bush interviewed by Bob Costas on the very subject the other night, in which he made the exact same statements. As for the idea of staying too long in Beijing (if that's your complaint), I would point out that while he was there he spoke several times with the Chinese government, expressing the same human rights concerns that got Joey Cheek ejected (Darfur), amongst others. You may not find that very productive, but had he not done so then that "failure" would be at the very top of every anti-Bush partisan's list of complaints. They'd say "oh he just went there to bump rears with the volleyball players and didn't even tell the Chinese what our concerns are!" The very definition of partisanship is when you find fault with the guy regardless of what he does.

The Beeb has an interesting piece running with emails and messages from readers who live in the region. Unsurprisingly, they seem to feel caught in the middle. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7554420.stm

Yeah, well, while you're incongruously wagging your finger at Bush again, the rest of the world seems focused on more productive analysis. From the New York Times: Had Bush gone home and made more forceful statements condemning Russia, the UN would now be in the position of having to hold its hands up in THREE directions, and the international press would be screaming "Iran off, Russia on!" And the EU would be positively beside itself. A second tier response was exactly the right call. And apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so: Gee. Maybe they are. But no, there's a silly picture of him slapping the rears of female beach volleyball players, so I guess that's impossible. line[/hr] Anyway, these other bits from the NYT article seemed relevant to the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10diplo.html?_r=1&ref=asia&oref=slogin

(This thread might actually be a good candidate for a "speculations" thread that actually has a positive context instead of the usual flim-flamery. Just a random thought -- no need to move it, IMO.) I think it's a fascinating question, and one which science fiction authors have wrestled with as well. One thing I'm a little confused/surprised by is the inclusion of "communicating civilizations" that have no electromagnetic control (e.g. radio). That's what that category is actually supposed to be -- species that can transmit and receive, not species that have reached some arbitrary level of "civilization". Sure, the ancient Sumerians could write on clay tablets, but they couldn't have received an Arecibo Message even if someone had been aiming one at them. In that sense the Earth number would be more like 150, or perhaps even less. And not only are we lacking data on other intelligent species, we don't even know how long our own "communicative" capability will last.

In that case, iNow, yes, I would call your comments partisan rather than "poignant". For one thing, his visit to the American beach volleyball gold medalists (shown in the first picture above) took place before the Russian troops moved into Ossetia, and the move being depicted there is a beach volleyball tradition, which the president deliberately declined to participate in, tapping Ms. May's lower back instead of her derriere. But it's not at all surprising that that photo has already hit all the far-left blogs. Good job perpetuating a new, inaccurate, partisan meme. When the Russians did move in, he made a statement to the press and diplomats were dispatched to the region almost immediately. He has since visited two Olympic events that I know of, the US-China basketball game and Michael Phelps' first gold medal swim. (The third image above is from the basketball game.) No dancing was involved, though certainly a fair amount of respectful cheering and congratulating in both cases. Congratulations on lowering the discussing to the absolute partisan dregs. Nice going. Thanks for re-elevating the discourse. That sounds right to me, though I admit my understanding of the underlying issues of the region is pretty dim. It's my understanding from that article I cited earlier that Georgia actually flies EU flags on all of its government buildings. They're pulling those strings too, trying to get the EU to step in (though of course they knew whom to ask first -- we invaded Iraq, after all). Just another good reason for Bush to stay out of it. Most likely the Bush administration will have to withdraw all or part of its support for Georgian membership in NATO (or slow the pace, etc). This threat is no doubt being communicated to Georgia right now, in kind of a "oh, you thought we'd only be angry with the Russians?" kind of move. Watch for Georgia to declare the removal of all of its troops from Iraq if that happens. (Not that they were really needed, nor is their presence there really important diplomatically anymore, what with the success of the surge.) The US can put pressure on Russia as well, but it seems logical that we would largely defer to the UN and EU on that pressure, and play the Georgian pressure card instead, in the interest of overall peace. Exactly how foreign affairs SHOULD go, when people are playing smart and sensible. Of course, smart foreign affairs hasn't exactly been a highlight of this administration, so I guess we'll have to see how it goes.

K. What would be "Bush taking it seriously"? What would that look like?