Pangloss

If concious action to "get along with the planet" is your rule for determining the most evolutionarily advanced race, you'd have to eliminate every single race on the planet except for humans.

David Suzuki, one of the most prominent scientists in the western hemisphere evangelizing that humans are responsible for global warming, the recipient of 22 honorary degrees from Canadian, American and Australian universities for his hard work in promoting this cause, the recipient of Canda's most prestigious award, the Order of Canada, recipient of the UN's Kalinga Prize, hailed by the Canadian Broadcast Company as one of the "Top Ten Canadians", author of 43 books including a best-selling series of children's books about science, has proposed that politicians who don't push the ecological agenda forward should be arrested and incarcerated. So much for scientific inquiry. After all, the debate is over, so shut the F up. Or else.

John5746 has a point -- all the candidates spew emotional stuff, and you're way out in the hinterlands in drawing a conclusion like that. If you want I can get you Oliver Stone's phone number and you guys can go make a movie about it. Congrats to John for getting away with an allusion that, had I made, would have caused at least three members to go Mount-Saint-Helens.

Some personal posts removed. Clarification is available via PM if desired.

Well it's nice of you to admit your bias, but it doesn't change the fact that you posted a Michael Moore statement and expected people to identify with it. Who cares what Michael Moore thinks? He is precisely as relevent as Rush Limbaugh. People are ignoring him, as they should be. Hurray for the American voter, for once. It ain't a perfect situation, but it could be worse -- they could be listening to the kind of people you want them listening to.

That's interesting, it does LOOK like an SLR, but I see what you mean. I guess it draws a certain "serious" camera buyer that way. But of course the real tradeoff is the lack of ability to switch lenses, which is really what makes an SLR useful. But you know, now that I think about it, if you're developing an SLR and you wanted to have it shoot video, shouldn't it just be a matter of locking the mirror into the up position and then passing the image data through to the LCD display on the back plate?

They say running for president is an e-ticket ride, but I wonder if it was really $37 million worth of entertainment.

I guess our previous discussion was more or less indeterminate. If anybody finds out any more about his plans in this area, please pass them along. Unfortunately since he started doing well in the primaries policies statements and announcements from the Obama camp have been two: Slim and None. We'll just have to keep an eye out for more info. I did find this article from a couple of weeks ago: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647 But it focuses on the positive and reads like a press release (it probably is one). No sign of programs he would cancel, of course. But it DOES pledge to complete the ISS, continue unmanned missions and (and this is key per the earlier discussion) continue development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle project (the Shuttle replacement) and the Ares launch vehicle. The release generated some amusingly entertaining angst over at the Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/9710/60633/713/435590

If it wasn't for Obama would you be saying that? Or would you be talking about how Democrats need to come together to avoid "eight more years"? If you're gonna be partisan, guy, be partisan. Don't hide it in the eggnog. Anyway, the anti-war vote isn't nearly as relevent as it was before the successful surge, and the single-issue vote never was. In this week's ABC News poll only 30% of DEMOCRATS felt that Iraq was the main issue in the election. They're too busy focusing on the economy now. Guess you progressives shouldn't have screamed "LOOK, LOOK! OVER HERE!", huh? Also, Michael Moore is precisely as relevent as Rush Limbaugh. They're both acting like spoiled brats, thinking that their idolizers actually equate to real power. I'm glad people are ignoring them. But just relax. People are voting for Obama in spite of his growing support from the left wing. He's increasingly viewed as a moderate, mainstream, coalition-building, sensible guy. You know, the things you always complained were missing from Bush?

Correct, and the McCain-Romney disparity has been widely reported. But even so the amount of money spent is higher than usual, and the turnout at the polls is higher than predicted (many observers keep expecting Republicans to stay home, but they seem to be doing the opposite). So I think the money is having more influence than expected, in spite of the surprising effects.

Makes sense. Thanks for the insight. I posted in error before -- the House has already approved the Senate's version of the bill, so it just needs White House signature (and Bush has already agreed). This suggests the possibility of checks being received by mid-May, well ahead of expectations. Some were predicting that checks would barely be received in time for the Christmas rush.

No, I am questioning the motives of the objections raised in this thread, suggesting they are being raised because of the nature of the conflict, not the importance of alternative energy, and would not have been raised had the problem been something more progressive and politically correct in nature. And iNow, I remind you of your own words: That clearly suggests a belief that the problem here lies in the nature of what's stopping the wind turbines from going up. You can't have wind turbines everywhere, after all. What are you going to do, shut down all runways because the open space is needed for wind turbines? Plop them down around Old Faithful? Chop down old-growth forests to make way for wind turbines? Of course not. Wind power will always represent some sort of compromise.

This is a valid point, IMO, and a perfectly reasonable observation. It just goes to show you how powerful the fourth estate is. Not to mention the money factor, which appears to be even more powerful than usual this year (not only is more being collected, but it has more effect per dollar spent). But these are not the only reasons Ron Paul didn't have traction with the voters, Ecoli. You can't chalk it up entirely to that. My own reasons for not voting for the guy had zip to do with whether I thought he could win. Granted I'm just one guy, but where do you think waves of popularity (and press support, and money) originate?

They have a right to vote. Responsibility is a whole other matter.

Just to update this, the senate's updated package passed today (which has to go back to the House) includes seniors and military. I gave the senate praise earlier for looking at food stamps and unemployment benefits, which do have a major stimulus impact (and may be included here, I haven't seen the fine print yet), but it's hard to imagine two LESS spendy groups of people that seniors and military families. (chuckle) Still, credit for fairly quick action (for the senate). (And I'm curious why McCain didn't vote. I haven't read into this yet, but I caught a headline saying he hadn't. But I'm late to class so I'll have to look into it later.)

I prefer an optimistic view. Attention to this issue will prompt society to work out issues that will eventually need to be worked out anyway, and raise the prominence of wind power in the process. You can't have wind turbines everywhere, after all. What are you going to do, shut down all runways because the open space is needed for wind turbines? Plop them down around Old Faithful? Chop down old-growth forests to make way for wind turbines? Of course not. Wind power will always represent some sort of compromise. These objections are partisan and PC, not forward-looking and relevent. The thing that's bothering people is the word "military". Replace it with "the extremely endangered yellow-bellied throat-warbler" and the thread would never have been started.

(shrug) All valid points. But remember, just as the media tells people what to think, it also tells you what the people are thinking. Just as it's possible anti-war voters are being misled somehow, it's also possible that the presence and relevence of anti-war voters was artificially inflated to begin with. An ABC News poll this week showed that people aren't seeing Iraq as a top issue anymore. Even amongst Democrats only 30% said Iraq was their primary concern (amongst Republicans it was only 22%). Just three weeks ago the war was still tied as the top issue. But now the war has taken a firm back seat to the economy (one of the fastest top-issue turnarounds that I've seen in 30 years of following politics, btw). So are anti-war voters turning to McCain, or are anti-war voters deciding that being an anti-war voter isn't necessary anymore? At any rate, I think what's really bothering you is the lack of interest in Ron Paul. You remind me of myself in 1984, lamenting the country's lack of interest in Mondale/Ferraro. Is it okay to steal just because you need? Of course not. It's short-sighted and selfish. In the same way, the purpose of voting is not self-aggrandizement. Citizens have a responsibility to consider the bigger picture.

The conventional wisdom is that late in the election cycle if one party has chosen its candidate and the other has not, then the party with the candidate will have an advantage. Certainly one can see how this might be a factor in the normal pattern of fundraising, for example. But I think this election cycle is breaking all the rules. Well, technically every election re-writes the rulebook a bit, but this one more than most, or so it seems to me.

Never heard of it. Which is pretty amazing considering 3.8 million people live there, according to the Wikipedia.

The megapixel war is finally over -- somebody found something else to push. Just out of idle curiosity, how do they do continuous video with an SLR anyway? Does the mirror just stay put, or is it more of an electronic reproduction of the view through the lens? I used to have one of these for a "telephoto lens", btw. It's a Celestron C8 telescope, which with a camera mounted on the end is roughly equivalent to a 2000mm F/8 (around 50 power). I was really into amateur astronomy for a long time, but I would use it from time to time for daylight photography, like shooting a space shuttle launch (we did eight of 'em).

It most certainly IS the case. First of all, voters aren't SUPPOSED to go ANYWHERE. They're human beings making up their own minds. It's a really, really bad idea to start saying where voters are supposed to go, and assuming they're "uninformed" if they don't go there. Second, deciding that a candidate has no chance and voting for one who might make progress on issues they find important, even if it's not all the progress they were hoping for, is not an example of a voter being "uninformed". It's an example of a voter paying attention and thinking about the long term. It may also be an example of people stepping outside of their selfish little single-issue causes and pondering the bigger picture. Those are things we need MORE of in this country. Not less.

I apologize if I read too much into what you were saying. It just struck me as being a little too ABB. I may be a jerk sometimes, but I'm damned well even-handed about it. I did exactly the same thing when people insisted that Bush "lied" about WMDs, and such is the case with the no-bid/cronyism accusations as well. I agree that the question transcends the domain of the Michael Moore and MoveOn.org crowd, but until there's actual evidence of cronyism, I won't tolerate it being called that here. But like you said earlier, you weren't complaining about cronyism, you were complaining about the larger issue of whether no-bid contracts are a good idea, so it was inappropriate for me to draw that conclusion.

Naw, ya think?

Clinton is still ahead on the delegates, and would be even farther ahead had Florida been counted (a subject that was being whispered quite a bit behind the scenes today). And Hillary also appears to have gotten more overall votes (just barely). One analysis I read today showed that most of the remaining February votes are likely to go Obama's way, although March looks more promising for Hillary. But given the revelation today that Clinton made only $13 million to Obama's 32 in January, and Clinton having to loan her own campaign $5 million (the same amount Obama raised online today), all the momentum does appear to be on Obama's side. Hillary's going to have to do something dramatic over the next few weeks if she is to have a chance to put this thing away before the convention. On the other hand, it's not at all clear that Obama can put it away before the convention either. Both the Clinton and Obama camps talked about that possibility today. As much talk as there's been about the Republicans being unable to pick somebody, the Democrats don't seem to be in any big hurry either. Howard Dean told the two campaigns over the weekend that whatever they're going to do, they'd better have it done before August. BTW, here's an interesting article talking about Florida delegates being locked out of a close race: http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/state/epaper/2008/02/07/m1a_FLA_DEMS_0207.html The article also mentions that the DNC is actively putting pressure on Florida officials to hold a caucus so that its delegates can be used. I can't imagine the Obama campaign likes that news a whole lot, but if there is a caucus held there will probably be time for both sides to campaign here, and the numbers will likely be very different from what they were two weeks ago.