Pangloss

The Geneva Convention is an explicit agreement covering very specific actions. You can certainly make a "spirit of the agreement" argument, but just blanketly saying we're in violation of international law is a statement that needs to be supported on legal grounds.

Nice post. I do think things get better, at least in terms of soldier training, but it often feels like a two-steps-forward-one-step-back deal. I thought that bit at the end about new training methods was an interesting example of that. I do think we have to be wary of "we can put a man on the moon, but..." reasoning -- would Iraq be a failure if one Iraqi citizen had died? But we can't ignore the cost either, it's a GOOD thing that we become generally more sensitive to it over time.

Probably. It's a common theme these days, donating to multiple candidates. I've never really understood holding candidates accountable for donations (per se), but I do agree with the need to hold them accountable for their relationships with donors, and often the donations can give testimony to that relationship. But that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Why yes, it is, and it's too bad we can't say the same about criticism of the modern environmental movement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw

I see what you mean. I wondered about this heavy Java focus myself when I was working on my Masters. We kept being asked to write code in Java that was supposed to do show how things worked in some other language! It was particularly kooky in the AI course, as you might imagine. The only time I remember doing something outside of Java was for a paper I wrote demonstrating that PostScript was a Turing-complete language. (lol) I did learn Assembly but that was actually a pre-requisite to the program. So yeah, what you're saying makes a lot of sense, and I can see how that might be a problem for CS programs these days. The temptation of "Java everywhere" must be pretty strong due to the level of development of those tools compared with tools available for other languages. They're basically saying "well at least we're not in .NET" and calling it a day.

Friends of the Earth convinced the press to make a big deal last week out of a very routine thing -- a major airline having to fly a jet only partially full. In this particular case, a Boeing 777 flew its regular hop from Chicago to London, but there were only five passengers on board. The FotE was certainly correct in pointing out the wastefulness of this flight, but they mislead the public (and more importantly mislead a major newspaper, its editor, and millions of readers) by ignoring significant factors. 1) The airline was contractually bound to fly that airplane. 2) The airplane was scheduled to make a return flight the next day, in which it could (and generally does) carry hundreds of passengers. 3) The flight lost a lot of money for the airline. The last point above is particularly important with regard to the FotE's complaint about the environment. Why? Because it demonstrates that this is, ultimately, a self-correcting problem. It doesn't require any intervention or effort whatsoever to fix this problem, because if the line continues to be unprofitable then the carrier will stop flying it! But even worse is the fact that this complaint comes a time when carriers are routinely setting records for percentage of seats filled! When combined with newer engine designs (the plane they complained about is brand spanking new!) means that air travel is more fuel-efficient than its ever been before. Aren't we supposed to WANT more efficient mass transit? I don't hear FotE complaining about that empty bus my local transit authority sends down Martin Luther King Blvd during mid-day, week-day hours when everyone is already at work. What's the difference? Some scandal! The story: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2008/03/05/nplane105.xml The play-up on the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/ecoscandal-aa-plane-fli_n_90032.html

I'm not sure if this is quite what you meant, but I've noticed that the "serious" CS schools seem to focus on Java and the "practical" programming schools (programs in IT, CIS, MIT, etc) focus more on Microsoft stuff (based on the .NET Framework). That's not across-the-board, but it does seem to be a trend. I teach at a private, for-profit school focusing on IT undergrads, and I spend most of my time teaching programming to students who will likely work on client-server business intelligence reporting, and we use Visual Studio and SQL Server for everything. But at the private, non-profit school where I'm working on my PhD, it's all Java and Oracle. The disparity is rather stark -- these IT students from the for-profits certainly aren't going to be inventing the next great wave of "killer apps", especially if too much of their "programming" time is spend clicking "next" in some Microsoft wizard. But I think it makes a lot of sense in terms of getting educated workers into sensible career paths. Your typical business application programmer really doesn't need to have a lot of advanced knowledge of calculus, complex algorithms, and so forth. They're mostly just filtering data from a big table and making it look nice. Another example of how the program does work is that a decent percentage of my students go on to masters programs in CIS, MIS/MIT or even (sometimes) CS, which suggests that their education transcends mere application training. (Not that you were suggesting otherwise, I'm just tossing out some of my thoughts for discussion.)

The whole episode is available for online viewing at this URL: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/ I put off watching this for a couple of weeks because I assumed it would be pretty ugly and uncomplimentary of the Marines. Boy was I wrong. They completely destroyed Iraqi eyewitness testimony and in the end seemed to support the overall exoneration of the Marines, focusing instead on the complexities of ground combat. And John Murtha does not make out well in this at all. I tell you what, anybody who believes in liberal bias in the media should watch this. And of course anybody who thinks Haditha was a massacre should watch it as well. They will not be pleased.

Well, would you agree that they often ignore the issue of cost, then? Because I think that is really an important point -- everyone here may know that, but not everyone out there knows that. I happen to think it's worth the cost, but I also think that the reason poll numbers are climbing is the notion that it is, in fact, free healthcare, at least as far as their wallets are concerned.

That page doesn't work for me. Is it QuickTime, by any chance? The 2003 Bullsh*t episode on environmentalism hysteria is available on YouTube here (the one where they got protesters to sign a petition banning dihydrogen monoxide): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw I think you may be missing at least one of his valuable points, which is that science shouldn't BE evangelizing this issue, it should simply present the evidence and then leave the socio-political situation alone. You say "while still preserving the objectivity science offers" as if objectivity is some kind of secondary effect of current convenience, and you speak as if the science is instructing us to go and march in the streets, like it's written between the tree lines or hard-coded into the value of pi. I don't buy that argument and I won't be a pawn to a politically-correct cause just because somebody says "the debate is over". Especially if someone says that. And not that I disagree with you about improving science reporting, but I personally see nothing wrong with science reporting on this issue -- the word is OUT, guy. All kinds of polls have shown that most people now believe in GW, so there's no lack of comprehension or understanding on the issue. Just because people aren't marching in politically-correct lockstep to turn in their SUVs and pick up a packet of hemp seeds doesn't mean they haven't been sufficiently educated. You should watch the video iNow sent me (which I blogged to the link below). One of the things it points out is that people have gotten the message -- public opinion is now absolutely on the side of GW, no ifs, ands or buts. Penn is barking into the wind. You should be praying he's heard, not hoping he'll be convinced to shut up, because if we solve the problem of GW without level-headed, reasoning people at the helm, we ARE going to make things worse, not better. That's what happens when evangelism runs roughshod over skepticism.

Lots of chatter today about the possibility of a new primary in Michigan. Florida governor Charlie Crist is still holding out for a seating of the existing delegates, but that would be hard to rationalize in Michigan, where Obama didn't even appear on the ballot (something I was surprised to hear today). Michigan could hold a new primary as soon as June, but what I thought was interesting (and therefore worth mentioning here) was that the kind of primary they're talking about having is a firehouse primary. That's not a term that you hear every day in on the national level but you do hear from time to time on the local level, especially in the old South. I've heard various definitions for it over the years, but the most common make it sound like a kind of cross between a regular primary and a caucus. It's like a caucus in that you have to show up and indicate your preference to a caucus agent (instead of balloting equipment), but it's like a regular primary in that your ballot is secret. They also tend to run on short notice in few polling places (more like a caucus) and on a thin budget (which is more or less the point). (Unfortunately there's a darker side to that history, especially in the Democratic party, where it was at times used by hardline segregationists to reduce minority influence (or at least you hear people say this from time to time). It would be unfair to raise that spectre in a modern context, though, since South Carolina's primary is considered "firehouse" and Jesse Jackson and Barrack Obama have both been winners under that system.) Regarding Florida, I thought it was interesting to hear today that Republican Governor Crist has the support of Democrats in asking the DNC to pay for a new Florida primary (which would cost around $28 million). My personal opinion is that it should be done regardless of who pays for it, and I'd be happy if we Floridians paid for it ourselves. Better than having our delegates seated as part of a brokered insider deal in which they meant nothing -- that would be no better than having the superdelegates decide things. Blah. Here's an article that discusses some of these issues in the news today: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5igrYLRrHG3P6lIbs2E7pSH0bxhvgD8V7O7HG0

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/03/05/compsci Well that's good news! Of course, given the current financial aid crisis, they may be some seriously broke students for a while, but at least enrollments are up. One thing I think the story misses is that Computer Science majors today are not like Computer Science majors ten years ago. They're aiming for R&D jobs, or advanced product development, not routine client-server, business-aspected programming positions. THOSE careers are now covered largely by IT programs in for-profit institutions and online schools.

You shouldn't speak for others any more than others should speak for you, Phi. I think many healthcare partisans try to convey EXACTLY that message, or at the very least try to convince lower-income earners that the only people paying will be the wealthy, which, given the power at their disposal, is probably exactly the opposite of how it will be. (Though I stand by what I said earlier.)

I agree with your first point (and some of the hair-splitting going on in this thread is pointless, IMO), but Obama has also participated in the parsing and hair-splitting. I gave an example of this with an independent source (FactCheck) in another thread. I know you just like the guy, and I'm not criticizing you personally, but there's a real danger in what you're doing above. If you raise him on a pedestal and pretend he can do no wrong, and don't recognize when he HAS done wrong, you're just setting yourself up for further partisanship and ultimate failure. It's the past 16 years, rinsed and repeated. Criticizing and questioning Obama is not a sin, it's a requirement. The kind of parsing we're seeing here, the kind you're giving examples of, THAT I completely agree is wrong. But he needs to answer questions, like he did in this case, not participate in more partisan hackery. Exactly. At the end of that exchange he didn't answer the question, he hid behind a subject change. I do agree with bascule that he's making a subtle and important political point, but I also think he's avoiding another one, and he needs to stop doing that. That's business as usual, not change. ---------- Let me just give a further example of what I'm talking about, from today's Wall Street Journal editorial page: Source here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120467901019711993.html?mod=djemEditorialPage But the WSJ went on to say this, in a separate editorial: Source here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120468872575712799.html?mod=djemEditorialPage As to the reasons why this is important, the WSJ adds the following excellent point: Couldn't have put it better myself. Obama needs to continue to step up and raise the bar (like he mostly did here, with Bascule's example), not stoop and pander and trade blows and make two wrongs a right.

I agree with the above two posts. Ramirez is an ideologue (but we knew this already), and this kind of deliberate misinterpretation is not conducive to the forward progress of society. But I have to point out that these sentiments are unfortunately not uncommon, and aren't only coming from the far right. I had a friend tell me the other day, who's never voted anything other than Democrat in his life, that Obama "scares him more than Hillary". I'm not joking around when I criticize the way Obama's been pandering to "movement" rhetoric. He's filling baseball stadiums with worshipers, not informing voters what he plans to do, and that's somewhat contrary to the American way. It's not going to play in the general election, and it's barely working in the primaries -- I imagine it's part of the reason for Clinton's successes tonight in Ohio and Texas. Even Tiny Fey on Saturday Night Live took a shot at him last week, complaining about people who will "do whatever Oprah tells them to do". Much of that criticism is, well as iNow so eloquently put it, "inbred and retarded" -- people poorly expressing some fears they probably shouldn't have to begin with. This is no local parish preacher plucked off the streets, he's a serious, vetted politician, with a perfectly valid record to stand on. He should be criticized and questioned, absolutely, as any politician should, but the fear-mongering is just ridiculous and isn't even a step above the racism it's obviously proxying for some. But I think he's playing into it by not being more specific on the issues and by pandering to electoral groups, and I think he would have been better served to stand on his positions and really BE the "candidate for change", even if he ended up telling some voters things they didn't really want to hear.

Yes, I'd agree with that, especially after reading this article in today's Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2185739/ Yay, politics as usual. Oh I'm sorry, I mean "change! big sweeping humongous change!"

From an extreme position even WTO redress of violations is considered management of trade, so you have to be careful in defining the subject. The position of the Democratic candidates clearly transcends climate policy. If that were all there was to it then it certainly wouldn't play in Ohio, where voters are upset about the perception of lost jobs, not global warming. But I haven't accused Obama or Clinton of being against free trade, I'm asking if there's more to their statements than meets the eye, which I think is a reasonable question given the situation.

I haven't researched the bill, but regarding the larger issue my general feeling is that we can afford it as a society and it's worth it as an investment. It'll help us stay competitive in the global economy, improve the standard of living and, if it's done right, cost us LESS than it does now. What's not to like?

Clinton and Obama have been beating each other up over this for a couple of weeks now, and I can't make head or tails of it. It seems like both sides are stretching the truth a bit thin, and the Anendberg FactCheck seems to agree. FactChecking Obama: FactChecking Clinton: But regarding the first point, while Obama may be exaggerating some of the specifics of Clinton's message, isn't it fair for him to point out that the Clinton administration was responsible for NAFTA? If he feels NAFTA is wrong, and she's claiming those eight years as part of her experience set, then that makes it a valid point of criticism, does it not? On the other hand, what does this say about Obama's position on free trade? He seems to be walking a fine line here, saying we need free trade but that NAFTA was a bad thing. I agree that there are some specifics that could be fine tuned, but free trade is free trade, isn't he really just sending union voters a misleading hint that he will favor protectionism? I don't know about you guys but I think some STRAIGHT answers on that issue would be really nice to have. Appeasing groups on false grounds isn't "change", it's "more of the same". But as I say I'm no happier with Clinton's position on that as well. What do you all think?

It's a policy setting. Administrators lock it sometimes in order to prevent users from doing things they're not supposed to be doing, for reasons such as reducing the cost (i.e. instances) of technical support. Is it your computer, or does it belong to your employer?

Carter WAS more direct and realistic than most -- it was one of the few things about the Carter administration that I applauded. But all that really got him in the end was accusations of pessimism and more ammunition for Reagan and Kennedy (I still think Carter was probably the most under-siege president in modern history, even including Bush). That's the problem for sitting presidents -- they're damned if they speak, and they're damned if they don't. But I also remember Carter spinning positive economic news. Presidents always struggle with this trade-off between making realistic responses to obvious bad news and still trying to sound positive, and Carter was no exception. Carter had attacked Ford over his economic policy, but had been rather disastrously unable to turn things around, and was defending an economy that was probably an order of magnitude worse than the current one, when adjusted for inflation. But he still tried to spin things positive. This article in Time Magazine, dating from 1980, seems relevent here, showing the press apparently translating positive economic spin one day and realistic policy announcements the next to mean that the administration didn't know what was going on (which, as with Bush today, could still be a fair assessment): (Also worth a read for the amusing sidebars of candidate Kennedy screaming for mandatory wage and price controls. And adding a bar and sickle to the American flag. Just kidding. About the bar and sickle, I mean.) Anyway, in other words he's trying to do positive spin while also trying to be realistic about the situation, and it's becoming fodder for the axe grinder. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? This article seems to support what I'm saying more directly:

Well that's how I see it, but I guess Bascule and iNow view it differently, and that's fine, I respect their opinion, I just think there are times when a President is SUPPOSED to say something positive because that's what the situation calls for -- you put out a certain positive face in public, and meanwhile you pedal like mad underneath the surface. Clinton and every other president have done exactly the same thing, so will president Obama. Republicans, conservatives and just general Clinton-haters constantly bashed Clinton for it for eight years, and I didn't like it then either, nor will I like it when they do it to Obama. I think that's making partisan hay out of a normal job function, but if it's intended as honest criticism, and not partisanship, I'm glad to hear it. That doesn't mean that Bush isn't stupid or that he does understand the economy. I don't have a problem with criticism on those points at all (though I only partially agree with it) -- there have been plenty of valid examples of Bushisms and rash statements from the White House over the years. This just isn't one of them.

Of course. And yet that's how it works. I guess it just goes to show you that there are plenty of stupid investors in the markets. Maybe a better question would be: Who cares? It doesn't really matter a whole lot, either politically or economically. It's not that presidential statements make ALL the difference -- the stock market was way down today. I guess most of them are smart enough to see the forest for the trees. I'm not sure I understand you -- are you saying that's the only thing the president ever does about the economy? I would say that that's not the case at all. Didn't he just sign the stimulus package two weeks ago? A drop in the bucket, of course, but a bigger drop than any knuckle-headedly optimistic public statements, or so it seems to me. Because he's not an economist, he's a politician. Is there a shortage of available clinical analyses from the real experts inside and outside the administration? Fed Chairman Bernanke is speaking on an almost daily basis. You'll notice that much of what he does is cheerleading as well, but it's rather more analytical, direct, reflective of reality and (most importantly) indicative of upcoming Fed Reserve actions that have real impact. I think I understand where you're coming from, and I empathize with the sentiment. But this isn't politics, it's just the daily-grind mechanics of government. Framing this as politics is a very dangerous game, in my opinion, and it's one that most candidates steer clear of, for good reason. There's a reason Bill Clinton chose to keep Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve Chairman, which I've always considered to be the single best decision of his entire presidency.

Of course. And that presents yet another valid question for Obama -- would he send them back in if they were doing that. And he needs to not be dodging these questions by changing the subject.

A fact which will make McCain applaud, I'm sure. This is why Obama's treading such a narrow path, here. I wonder if MoveOn.org has ever withdrawn an endorsement.