Pangloss

Slate op/ed on changing the War Powers Act: http://www.slate.com/id/2195152?nav=wp Howard Kurtz on the death of Tony Snow: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/13/AR2008071302054.html line[/hr] From the Wall Street Journal and Cook Political Report. What's interesting about this image is mainly the lower portion, which indicates how currently-competitive seats are leaning amongst voters in those districts. line[/hr] Interesting article from Politico.com about Oliver Stone's efforts to make his upcoming film "W" as realistic as possible. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11776.html line[/hr] The New Yorker's very long biography on Obama's early days. This is the story that came out this week (for next week's issue) that has resulted in controversy, not for the story, but for the cover that the New Yorker ran. Making It: How Chicago Shaped Obama line[/hr] Fannie, Freddie spent $200M to buy influence

Not for me!

We're getting actual hardware? Not a virtual instance or something? That's pretty sweet, what is it?

Well, at least until 50,000 other researchers conclude the same thing (using exactly the same statistical approaches and exactly the same data), then hold an international summit and declare the debate to be over, and then it magically becomes "causally represented" and "does".

Rofl! Well you know better than that -- I'm not a partisan, and I'm not the only one talking about this issue. Obama has run into trouble with swing voters and independents, even right here on this forum, over his perceived FISA and campaign finance flip-flops, not to mention his perceived-as-questionable positions on free trade, faith-based programs, foreign policy and more. Swing voters currently account for as much as 23% of likely 2008 voters, and Obama runs neck-and-neck with McCain in that area. In that same Gallup poll, published just two weeks ago, of those swing voters, only 13% viewed Obama favorably and McCain unfavorably. I'm not saying Obama isn't doing well, mind you -- he is. I'm saying that if he doesn't please these people he's not going to win in November. Adding to that from my personal experience, I spend time on moderate conservative forums (where the Rush Limbaugh types are run out on a rail) and I see a LOT of angst and uncertainty over Obama. It's quite a bit above the level of trumpeting his middle name or faking Photoshops, but it is very much malleable and subject to unreasonable suasion like the fact that the far left supports Obama unquestionably. I also spend time on moderate liberal forums (where the Al Franken types are run out on a rail), and I see a lot of angst and uncertainty over Obama there as well. These people aren't represented by MoveOn.org, and while they don't really object to them, they are concerned about perceived flip-flops like FISA, Iraq and campaign finance. So I say it again: Nothing will put John McCain in the White House more surely than convincing people that Obama has a hidden pacifist and/or far-left agenda. Nothing. That is just my opinion, of course, but it's hardly the "conservative talking points" view.

Actually most military hardware has a product life cycle that completes regardless of whether it is used or not, it just moves along more quickly in time of war. Training can actually use up equipment almost as efficiently as combat, especially in the case of really large systems like aircraft carriers. Aircraft are a maintenance nightmare all the time. But then of course you have things like bullets that don't expire for a very long time but get used up quickly in wartime. If you get a chance to see a fairly obscure movie with Nicholas Cage called "Lord of War" (penned by the same guy who wrote "Gattaca" and "The Truman Show"), all those AK-47s that appear in that movie are real. The producers went out of their way to make that happen. The director (iirc) tells the story behind that in the commentary track, which is worth a listen. Anyway, that not only goes to show how ubiquitous AK-47s are, it also shows their longevity and the advantage of cheapness in weaponry, which is a lesson that I think the United States can learn now that the Cold War is over.

Kudos for what turned out to be an interesting question (and answers), though.

He'd still be cited for contempt, though, and Democrats would have their political show, but nothing would be resolved. This question of executive privilege needs to be addressed, but I'm afraid we may lack the mechanism to address it.

He's the one person who gets a pass on the whining, though.

Your point being, what, that he says one thing about Afghanistan but will do another? I think you're wrong, but more importantly I think you need to be wrong about that in order for Obama to win in November. That kind of perception may be helping him maintain the fanatical base, but it's hurting him with moderate swing voters. Nothing will put John McCain in the White House more surely than convincing people that Obama has a hidden pacifist and/or far-left agenda. So I'm telling my far-left friends to lay off the wink-wink/nudge-nudge, and I'd do the same if I were you. There are two sides to not being a Soros sock-puppet, and you might as well just get used to the fact that not everything the Obama White House does is going to sit well on the MoveOn.org forums.

I don't know what that means, but I suspect I will find it much less palatable than the idea that our politicians usually have to make compromises.

Oh yes, definitely, and well put. I consider it one of my greatest personal revelations in life when I got into teaching and discovered that I was learning more about the subjects because I was teaching them. What an unexpected rush! (Not to mention a powerful motivator for continuous improvement.) I see your point. Interesting! I'll bet that's a fascinating story. If you come across anything written down on the particulars of that I sure would appreciate your passing it along.

And if Pakistan won't work with us, then we should send troops to Pakistan over their objections.

I see the point now. Threads like nstansbury's don't deserve to be lumped in with the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. It's not an opinion poll or a popularity contest. The threads should either be left open or closed based on standardized rules. I'm not sure I like the idea of casting off all radical thinking, but I do agree now that there's two separate things going on in there.

Well you need to tell your gut to be more civil on this forum. Capiche?

I think your point there is largely valid, especially the last bit, and you may well be right across-the-board, but whenever I ponder that notion I bolded above I'm always skeptical about it. Einstein used to say that it's not a valid theory until it can be explained in plain English, or words to that effect. Of course he didn't mean everyone, but I think there's a reasonable axiom there regarding the common layman. Even the gritty details should be explainable. Maybe it's time for graduate-level studies in "explaining science". Think of it as the "Management Information Science" equivalent for Physics, et al. Of course, thousands of companies need practical computer people. I don't know who would hire physics explainers. Congress, perhaps?

It was a two-page story. Their web site is a bit heavy on advertising, IMO; sometimes it's hard to see the second page link. Note that Obama has also called for two additional brigades to be sent to Afghanistan since August of last year. http://www.nysun.com/national/mccain-will-call-for-a-surge-of-troops/81861/ So if you're wondering where McCain thinks we're going to get them from, you might also pause a moment to wonder where Obama thinks we're going to get them from. Just a thought.

From troops that were planned for Iraq, which no longer needs them. Iraq is gradually drawing down and they now expect to ship 2-3 brigades home this fall. Basically it means Afghanistan will get a surge around mid-winter. http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=5363453 I think it makes sense. It worked for Iraq, and I hope they get someone as good as Petraeus to do it. The problems of Afghanistan are very different from Iraq, but the Afghani people have the exact same motivation that the Iraqis have, and there's every reason to be optimistic.

We shouldn't be having bank runs. The fact that we are says a great deal about the media and the current political climate of this country, and almost nothing about the economy. I think it's ridiculous that we've gotten into the sub-prime mortgage mess. There were insufficient precautions taken, and the result is millions of Americans getting siren-called and then sucker-punched for the sole purpose of slight annual increases in corporate bottom-lines. I'm behind that "liberal" meme 1,010%. But falsely scaring everyone about the safety of their life's savings for political gain is the lowest of the low. He's sucker-punching the rest of America just to make sure we all suffer as well. Bring it all down! Burn baby burn! That'll teach 'em for voting Republican! line[/hr] CNBC's Jerry Bowyer weighs in: How Chuck Schumer Caused the Second Largest Bank Failure in US History

No, you're definitely not the only one! But I don't think Congress' approval rating can get any lower. I suppose Bush's could drop another notch.

Yesterday one of the largest of the troubled high-risk mortgage lenders collapsed after depositors made a run on the bank to withdraw their money. Depositors with $100,000 or less get their money back from the FDIC. Any depositors with more than $100,000 in the bank will apparently get 50 cents on the dollar from the FDIC. All of this at taxpayer expense. While no one disagrees that this was a troubled institution that may ultimately have collapsed anyway, some observers are saying that the immediate trigger for its demise can be directly attributed to Senator Chuck Schumer of New York. Schumer says he was just doing his job, warning regulators that the bank faced possible collapse (as if they didn't know). But that isn't his job, everyone knew about IndyMac and it was being monitored closely. And even worse, Schumer did something else -- he released his warning to the press. The quote below isn't from right-wing pundits, it's from the Treasury Department's Office of Thrift Supervision, which monitors federal savings banks. http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/7/778029.html Mike Armstrong of the Philadelphia Inquirer puts it succinctly: The Wall Street Journal posted a similar editorial about it today. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121607771017452513.html?mod=djemEditorialPage Why would he do it? Isn't it obvious? The lenders weren't collapsing fast enough. There wasn't enough panic. Gotta create some so people will vote Democrat in the fall. And if a few rich people get screwed in the process, well hey, who cares about the rich? What a jerk.

All I know about Iceland is that they are home to a company that makes one of the most interesting MMO games, called EVE Online. It's a SF/jumpgate-style game, but they have the most detailed economic model of any computer game I've ever seen (and a full-time economist overseeing it, complete with quarterly economic reports!). If you think calculating a profit margin in real life is hard, that thing is just wicked. All I can surmise from that is that they must have a pretty decent education system.

Rofl! "We are in a crisis, and that crisis demands an unviable short-term solution." Classic! Well put.

Because it's moving past the wing and has to go somewhere. Neither Bernoulli nor Newton address the issue of why the air is moving past the wing. It's really beside the point.

Apparently this is a long-standing debate. I found a great overview of the issue in this article that I found via the Wikipedia article on Bernoulli's Principle, which looks at the issue from the perspective of aircraft pilots: Bernoulli Or Newton: Who's Right About Lift? He goes on to support Newton with several sources, though. Then he declares them both right and delves into some more history. He gets into some science on page 2: Long story short: