Pangloss

They'd have probably printed that kind of piece (with his thoughts on journalistic integrity). I do agree that the newsies are too infatuated with Obama. Not as much as McCain does, but it's gotten pretty outrageous. These videos are amusing, albeit a bit unfair: http://www.johnmccain.com/video/love.htm

Jindal nixed the rumors this morning. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/23/jindal-says-hes-not-interested-in-no-2-spot-with-mccain/

New York Times columnist David Brooks ran a great column yesterday about the debt situation in this country. He talks about the left and the right blaming each other over it, with the right screaming that it's about accountability, and the left screaming about compassion. Then he talks about a "third position". His point is not that people aren't responsible for their actions, but that there is a larger concern here. We've created a society that has forgotten the significance of debt and the value of thrift. As he puts it, we're in a period of "mass luxury", and many institutions that used to warn people about the dangers of profligate spending no longer do so. The government and moral institutions have begun to fight back, but it's an uphill battle, and the toughest and most important part of the job still has to be done by individuals. I think it's a great point. It will sound like some to be making excuses for people's bad behavior, and to others like demanding accountability. But I think he's struck and in-between chord, and one that's right on target. What do you all think? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/22/opinion/22brooks.html?em&ex=1216872000&en=266d0c9c7fcffe27&ei=5087%0A

The others got it from Drudge, as I understand it. I'm just going by Howard Kurtz on this, but he's a reliable source (all puns intended), and a relatively objective one. As they say in the business, that's why he gets the gets that he gets. Anybody whom Ann Coulter calls "a liberal obmudsman apologist" and the far left also reproach for being a conservative shill is alright in my book. And if that weren't enough, I've read a couple of his books. McCain chose to play it for partisanship value.

Sure it worked. And two wrongs don't make a right. He chose to howl at the Drudge Report, of all places. Whatever this event says about the New York Times, it also says something about the McCain campaign. Wrong in opining that the New York Times "having any claims to integrity is akin to a porn star having any claims to virginity". I respect your opinion; I was simply stating mine to the contrary.

The Wall Street Journal's Shelby Steele explores the differences between Jesse Jackson's approach to black-white relations versus Barack Obama's. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121668579909472083.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

McCain also made a surprise visit to Louisiana on Monday, and has a secret announcement planned for Thursday in New Orleans, timed to coincide with Obama's Berlin speech. The speech is being touted by McCain workers as intended to steal some of Obama's thunder.

There's no need for that. Be polite, please.

There is some truth to that, but the right keeps howling that the media ignores his lack of foreign policy experience. And to be fair, it's pretty immodest for all three network anchors to be following the Democratic candidate around the Middle East like he's some kind of messiah. Maybe I'm just a bit cynical today because I watched "Network" last night for the umpteenth time.

You can read the McCain piece, actually. As Howard Kurtz put it in the article I linked above, when the Times rejected the McCain piece on editorial grounds, the McCain people had a choice -- they could re-write it to make it acceptable, submit it to another paper, or drop it and howl to the Drudge report. They chose the third option, which says something unfortunate in my book. http://www.drudgereport.com/flashnym.htm Oh well. Anyway, in answer to iNow's question above, what I was trying to say (perhaps poorly) is that I normally would support the Times' desire to have op/ed pieces meet their editorial standards (whatever they happen to be). It's their paper, they should make sure such pieces rise to the level of the Great Grey Lady, no question about it. (IMO DH is just plain wrong.) But an exception should be made in this case, for two reasons: 1) It's best if you let the candidates speak for themselves, and 2) giving somebody enough rope to hang themselves is a perfectly acceptable journalistic practice. In short, if McCain wrote garbage, the New York Times will not be sullying its image if it shows us that garbage in all its stinking splendor. This just isn't an appropriate time for a professor to tell a student that their work is unacceptable. And I don't think it's a mistake that that's how this is playing out.

The New York Times has apparently rejected an op/ed piece by Republican candidate John McCain, after running a similar op/ed by Democratic candidate Barack Obama on July 14th. The Obama piece attracted some comment last week over its suggestion of a 16 month timeline for departure from Iraq. The 7/14 Obama piece can be found here. Times editor David Shipley (as quoted in the two articles linked below) says he rejected the piece because it wasn't substantive, saying in part: But renowned media analyst Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, commenting in a blog piece that can be found here calls that a "pretty high bar", and even the widely-seen-as-liberal LA Times, in a blog post today, suggests that that water mark may be a bit unfair: But the right-wing bloggers are, of course, going nuts, and apparently even the McCain people are getting into it. (sigh) In my opinion the Times has the right to reject whatever it wants. But they should have run this piece regardless of what it says. This is a special situation, not a normal op/ed situation, and they should not be sticking their noses into it on the editorial level. The idea that the integrity of the paper is at stake is pretty silly. I don't think it's liberal censorship, but I do think he stuck his nose in where it doesn't belong. My two bits, anyway. What do you all think?

Doh! Too bad Joe Lieberman wasn't standing nearby this time, right? But seriously, he obviously meant Iran. I don't put a lot of stock in gaffs like this, and I've been kinda glad to see most of them not get posted here (but it's cool, at least there's humor value). I don't even disagree with those suggesting that it may indicate a lack of knowledge, I would just point out that we can't make that judgement based on 30-second sound bites. Obama makes a lot of gaffs too, and that's just not what the contest should be about. These people are always in a fishbowl and we're the ones sloshing it around and then pointing at the water that spills over the edge. The other day a conservative friend of mine called and launched into this tirade about Obama's dark and sinister past. I listened to it politely for a few minutes, mm-hmm'ing in the right places, but finally I just said, "Look, you don't know the guy any better than I do, so aren't you really just passing along other people's interpretations?" I think this stuff actually hurts Obama more than it helps him (not that he was behind this, of course, but I mean when he does attack on this level). He does better (at least with me) when he avoids attack and sticks with his audaciously middle-ground message of hope. America just does not want to hear another ABB-style message from the left, any more than it wants the right to do another swift-boating deal. It just won't accept it.

The link in the OP was removed by a mod and we're discussing whether this was a spammer thing. A certain site has been showing up a lot in posts from newly registered people (most of them removed before you guys saw them). Sorry for any confusion; anyone interested can check out iNow's helpful link.

Moved to Speculations.

Cute.

And the source of salmonella is suddenly found! Quick, FDA, to iNow's house! <point point>

Aardvark, chill out. There is no reason for you to be so insulting, and it is not conducive to good discussion. If you keep posting like that you're going to start eating infraction points and seeing your posts removed again. Knock it off.

Well in my opinion your initial question is good but the conclusion is messed. We take control over our instinct-driven, animal-derived behaviors for all sorts of reasons (like skepticism or scientific endeavors) -- why does this one get derided as "puritanical" and "religiously dictated"? Not that you're wrong, I think you're just missing a connecting step there. Maybe a better way to make that point would be to say that WHEN it is religiously-dictated it's not a good thing, but when it's done for logical reasons, such as avoiding pregnancy or educational/economic hardships, or just plain personal choice-making, it's fine.

There's nothing about drilling offshore that precludes the creation of "hundreds of thousands" of jobs based on alternative energy sources.

Why wouldn't they charge themselves the full market price all along the chain? It makes financial sense. If a process along the chain needs cheaper oil than the market price then you can get more profit from selling the oil to someone else rather than performing that part of the manufacturing chain. There's absolutely no point in cross subsidising any part of your company. Then why did it take so many decades to arrive at (or near) $150/barrel? They could have "paid themselves" more than the market rate all along.

The thing I've never been able to figure out is what happens in the case of completely vertical companies, which drill, ship, refine and market. It would be rather odd for them to pay themselves market price for oil they drilled themselves. There's a lot about the manufacturing chain for big oil that I don't understand.

Bascule, how would you describe your difference of opinion with Aardvark? I'm not convinced you're not just picking a fight over semantics here.

Um, can't we do both? If the price of gas isn't coming down substantially ever again, there will remain more than adequate motivation for alternative fuels. So drill, but keep going with the development of plug-in hybrids and everything else.

I see, thank you.

Well, isn't that an interesting example of spin-doctoring the news. I don't know which of you to believe, and both could be technically correct thanks to careful phrasing and avoidanace of issues. How utterly useless and uninformative.