Pangloss

Just to add a bit more analysis on this, I was disappointed to hear George Stephanopolis commenting tonight on ABC News that Republicans seem to be rallying behind this issue and planning to stir it up some more. Given how well Obama responded to this I think that's a shame, really driving it into swiftboat territory. I passed briefly by three right-of-center discussion boards that I lurk on today and on two of them that seemed to be the case -- lots of people jumping on this anti-Obama bandwagon. The third seemed more mixed. Sometimes these things do take a while to filter through public perception (so few caught the speech live or even in long quotes, and the newsies of course report "both sides"). But I was really hoping for a better reaction. It really was one of the best speeches I've seen from a politician in a while, and perhaps the best speech I've heard on race relations since 4/4/68.

Because they didn't trust the concept of federalism. That was the big political divide of the first generation of Americans -- federalism versus a state-centric, loose conjoin. Washington versus Jefferson, if you want it personified. (And btw if you want to see some ug-lee politics, go read some of THOSE newspaper stories! Ho-lee-cow! One of the founding fathers (Madison?) even once called Washington "George the Fourth" over this issue!) -------- (Side note: You guys watching the HBO miniseries on John Adams? I've got the first two eps Tivo'd but haven't taken a peek yet.)

You make it sound like a simple matter of snapping one's fingers and off we go towards economic salvation and personal happiness. Snap snap, no more berkas and everyone will just be okay with that. Snap snap, free falafal for everyone! Snap snap, shiites and sunnis living together in harmony! They know they don't want suicide bombers to rule the day, sure. But the underlying problems that produced the suicide bombers (which wasn't, unless you ask Michael Moore, American troop presence) remain -- religious divides, economic struggle, and freedom. These are tough problems. We can't even solve them in our highly successful western nations, what makes you think it's any easier for them? Wouldn't it be harder? Putting additional pressure on by threatening withdrawl may help, but in the end the solutions still have to be found. As you said I would say, we are making progress, and they do need more time. Some met, some underway, lots of work still to do. As you say, it's pretty straightforward indeed.

Ok, point made, flamewar not required.

I'm not sure I understand the localization argument. Are you guys basically saying that it SHOULD vary from place to place, depending on the local criminal and general safety environment? If so it's an interesting point, but I'm not sure I'd agree. This is a highly mobile society, and criminals can go anywhere and attack anyone at any time. Also I've never been a real big fan of state-by-state concepts of civil rights. Either something is a right, or it isn't. And it feels like passing the buck. But maybe it's just me.

Women ski jumpers -- the only Winter Olympic sport that doesn't allow competition for both men and women. It may not sound like a big deal, but I think it's interesting to look at why they're being denied. In the case of most male sports, female versions were brought in under an equal rights action. But ski jumping wasn't included back then because it was considered "too dangerous". That excuse isn't used anymore, now they say "not enough competition". But that argument doesn't work either, because over 80 women would like to compete in Vancouver in 2010, versus only 36 in the first female snowboarding competition that was allowed just a few years ago. According to the Wikipedia (in a sourced comment), there are over 135 female athletes competing internationally -- more than bobsledding or luge! Ironically, some of the female ski jumpers have been asked to come to Vancouver anyway -- to test the jumps. Gotta make sure they're safe enough for the men, you know! http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WinterGames2006/story?id=1626658 Seems to me they ought to let them in immediately. The excuses just don't cut it.

Well that's one way to look at it, but another is to say that the militia clause was just a way to emphasize the importance of gun ownership in the sentence. It also makes sense, because the phrase is otherwise kinda pointless -- Captain Obvious wasn't a Framer. (grin)

It depends on the context. In the context of web sites, general/business application development, graphic design, etc, moving images are usually referred to by words like "animation" or "video", depending on whether the source is real-world visual capture (from a camera) or computer-generated imagery. But you will see the word "graphics" refer to moving images from time to time in certain contexts, such as "the graphics in that game were pretty good". But in the context of the first post in this thread, asking for the difference between "graphics" and "images", it seems likely that the poster was asking for the difference between computer-generated, vector-based drawings, and camera-captured still images. I.E. the difference between a drawing file and a bitmap file. I've taught a number of introductory computer courses and it's a pretty common point of confusion for newcomers to computers, and it leads to a lot of interesting learning opportunities, e.g. questions like "why is a bitmap so much larger than a drawing?", or "why do I have all that ugly block-like haze all over my internet video?" Good stuff. But the poster hasn't returned since posting this message so I'm guessing they figured it out by now.

Well let me be more specific. I realize that the "leave now" proponents don't actually mean "now", but they do seem to mean that we should depart as soon as we can safely do so, with "safe" being a reference only to our troops and perhaps any civilians located around our troops as we depart. I think that's a mistake, and that our determination of departure should be made on the political benchmarks that they've been using. I do agree with some of what you're saying, and I think it goes along with a good point that iNow made earlier about how the threat of our withdrawl has had an impact on their progress. I don't want it to take decades and I don't think any of the candidates have suggested that it actually will. McCain gets bashed over this a bit, and fairly so -- his comments fed that criticism. But he doesn't want us to stay any longer than we have to, or any more than any other candidate does. I also agree that Iran is irrelevent in this discussion, as much as the hawks would have it be so. The hawks should not be allowed to frame this debate, and I don't think they will be. But I also don't think our reasons for going there are relevent to this discussion either, and I don't know why they ever come up in the context of figuring out when to leave (you raised this issue in the OP). But in the end the only thing I really take issue with you on is the extent to which Iraq is ready right now. They aren't ready, and it's too soon to leave. However, I'm all for more threats to leave. By all means, pull some troops out now (as Bush is doing in June). Threaten to pull out some more. DO pull out some more. Whatever it takes to keep the pressure on without toppling the fragile coalition government. By all means.

There was fascinating Supreme Court debate yesterday over gun ownership. For the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court is going to consider, and perhaps finally resolve, one of the great unanswered questions in US constitutional law. The case involves a total ban on handguns in (ironically?) Washington, D.C., which has been in place for over 30 years but has more or less failed to stop handgun violence. Opponents accuse the ban of being unconstitutional, and in most parts of the US lawmakers would agree (in fact over 300 congressmen & women signed an amicus brief to that effect). The D.C. mayor has a different view, and his view does have its supporters. Here's what the 2nd Amendment actually says: The question has always been whether the amendment actually guarantees the right of gun ownership to individuals, or if it's just talking about "militias". Both sides have their fair share of logical points, such as the fact that it initially is talking about militias, or the fact that the second half of the sentence seems clearly in favor of ownership. The fact that the question remains unresolved must surely be tempting to current Court members, and this motivation reportedly was obvious in debate yesterday. Most observers seemed to feel that most of the justices agreed with the lower court that the ban violated the 2nd amendment, but it's dangerous to predict these things. I am in favor of gun control, but opposed to a total ban. I think there's a lot to be said for private home ownership of handguns, but I also think there should be required education and licensing, as there is in many if not most states and localities. (At least one town in Georgia actually REQUIRES all citizens to own a firearm!) But the real interest here for me lies in the process itself. The debate, the discussion, the weighing of interests and freedoms. Quite fascinating. What do you all think?

Last week ABC News released the results of a poll conducted amongst Iraqis that, for the first time, showed that the majority of Iraqis believe their situation is improving. It also had another interesting statistics: While 71% disapprove of ongoing military presence, only 15% want the Americans to leave immediately. 36% want us to stay in force "until a new government is in place". http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/GoodMorningAmerica/Iraq_anniversary_poll_040314.html Here's another interesting tidbit from the poll: 49% want democracy, and only 21% want Islamic law. But 70% expressed confidence in their religious institution and leadership. <shudder> Now... when was it you wanted to leave, again?

Exactly. I do agree that we can afford to extend a helping hand in rare cases, but they should very much be the exception and not the rule. I also think we can do better about educating the public about debt and regulating the industry to stop some of the seedier, more predatory practices. But in the end, free people are powerful people, and they need to be careful how they use that power. During the housing boom there was no shortage of complaints from people who couldn't get those loans, complaining about being held back by the man and demanding that the government do something about it. It's funny how you don't hear from them anymore. No matter how far you lower the bar, there will always be people who think it should be lower.

Wow, is that what it says? I thought it showed non-borrowed reserves of depository institutions. I'll be darned -- that's quite a chart! I think that's a pretty broad case to make based on a single indicator. But you're welcome to try and make it. I'm thinking you might need to throw an ellipses or two into that argument, just to make sure you nail it down. The Dow was up over 400 points today and NASDAQ over 90 following admission that there's a downturn and the promise to act accordingly. As the Treasury Secretary put it the other day, 92% of mortgages are being paid on time, and only 2% are in foreclosure. Economic expansion has slowed to a crawl but that's hardly the same thing as a collapse, unemployment isn't falling in spite of decreasing job numbers (which means more people are going back to school, yay!), and global investor confidence has risen three straight months in a row (source). I don't think anything is being ignored, and I don't think the case has been made that the handling is wrong. What kind of "handling" do you feel is warranted?

Is it any good? The first one is one of my all-time favorites, but some of his later sequels, especially the ones "co-written" (read "ghost-written") by Gentry Lee were kinda lame. Too much human drama, not enough hard science.

I had to look that up before I knew what it was -- a British bank owned by the British government that, as you say, has apparently been hit by the mortgage crisis (not housing slump, btw -- different issue). I'm curious whether British citizens are questioning the validity of bailing out their bank, as they are here.

Signing a deal with a young, up-and-coming Rafael Palmeiro?

Nothing? Would YOU try to take oil away from China?

Animal testing for the win. But I would be willing to consider further restrictions and guidelines on testing if they were logical and didn't detract from science. Even the scientific establishment accepts limits and ethical guidelines, and it can't hurt to revisit those once in a while and make sure they are being followed.

I agree, which is why I think it's valid to question the motives of both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates who are criticizing the Bush administration over economic matters. They keep suggesting that we haven't spent ENOUGH money, as if somehow spending $4 billion instead of $2 billion will actually allow us to steer a $14 trillion economy. What hubris! (Although I do note a big difference in the way Obama talks about this stuff. He SAYS people are hurting, but he doesn't come right out and offer billions in welfare, wheras with the other two I feel like it's absolutely certain that they'll be ripping money out of my pocket before I can sneeze.)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jfE8qUikNEG6MVWqYku2k8BD_RcgD8VG3QS80 The last of the grand masters has passed.

The idea is apparently getting some traction in European politics, with the French forign minister weighing in on the "pro" side today and notable Germans apparently considering it as well. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/03/18/asia/react.php

I think this is worse than the Clinton downturn of 2000, but it seems to be more or less on a par with the Bush I downturn of 1992. But these things are cyclical and not really a source of major concern, IMO. It's being handled, in so far as such things can be managed (which isn't very far).

Mod Note: This is a new Tibet discussion thread. I pulled the most relevent posts from the previous thread, which will be removed. Post away.

Why is it so important what we call it? Is that about recognizing a lagging economy, or getting a Democrat elected this fall?

I think John was spot-on with his comments, and so does Barrack Obama. He mentioned in his speech today that the old axiom is true that the Sunday morning hour is the most segregated hour in America, and that much hatred and anger remains, and that it's wrong for it to still exist. iNow, Obama's not just denouncing Wright in order to distance himself from controversy. He's criticizing the man because he is wrong. His speech today was outstanding, directly confronting this issue in a manner that would make most politicians scream and run away in terror. But he not only maintained that Wright's sermon statements were wrong, but he even goes on to say exactly what was wrong about them. Brilliant. He's not hiding or white-washing anything, nor is he running away from something just because it's unpopular. He's explaining not only why he continued to associate with this man, but also why we can safely believe that this man's point of view is not the same as Obama's. That's exactly what I wanted to hear. The LA Times has a story on today's speech that's worth reading: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-campaign19mar19,1,4641756.story