Pangloss

Our troops have been in Germany and Japan for 62 years. EVERYBODY PANIC! The issue that was brought up here is whether a "50 year" presence in Iraq is a bad thing. I would suggest that it is an irrelevent thing. The relevent thing would be whether our troops are fighting and dying there, as opposed to simply watching a geographic demarkation, training local troops, etc.

I haven't been able to find a source for this on the net yet, but according to a Eric Burns on Fox News Watch, one of CNN's editors, in trying to defend his network's actions, made the amusing statement "Well you can't Google everyone!" Of course they did somehow find time to set the gay general up with airline tickets and a hotel room. Duh. I can't vouch for the accuracy of that, considering the source (though I happen to like Eric Burns and enjoyed his last book quite a bit), but I thought the quote was worth passing along just for the amusement factor.

We don't occupy Korea. We have troops there. There is a difference. In fact I'm actually glad you brought up Korea. If Iraq became the success story that Korea has become, I'd be tickled pink. Why wouldn't I be?

I don't understand this post. What are you trying to say?

Well first of all, regardless of what bills are passed, there's simply no way for Republicans to actually guarantee military presence in Iraq "for the next 50 years". That's just fear-mongering, and it should not be pandered to by passing it along. Second, any action taken by congress will be unable to pass unless Democrats agree to it. They're in the (slight) majority, remember? Republicans can "seek" whatever they want; what they actually succeed at will be at the will of both parties. Third, and more to the point, I agree that the question of whether the surge is working is not the only important issue, and not really even the main issue, with regard to the future of Iraq. Of main interest to me at the moment, however, is what this says about the Democratic presidential candidates, who spent millions of dollars and thousands of hours telling us that the surge had zero chance, and the efforts of many in congress (Democrats and Republicans) to stop the surge and pull out the troops before NOW -- before THIS VERY POINT IN TIME. How about before we figure out what we're going to do next, we first recognize what we just did, and did correctly? For once! Or is that just not possible in this country anymore?

That's the cost-benefit I was referring to -- the intangible benefits of inspiration and imagination. I don't know of any current financial benefit to unmanned exploration, though I suppose it's always possible.

Fred, I wasn't the one who moved that thread, but I did see it, and I didn't understand it either. So far as I can see (in the removed thread holding area) it contains no accusation of stupidity, just a request for clarification. If you have a problem with a moderator action it's generally a better idea to take it up with a moderator than to bring it up in public. We're human beings too, and we don't like being embarassed in public any more than I'm sure you do. Thanks.

No, the point of the thread was to present a deceptive basis for accusing him of insentitivity towards the disabled. In answer to your question, I have no idea, but I don't have a problem with THAT GUY being on some aspect of welfare, including foot stamps.

ORLY? That's not cool. It takes a pretty blind eye to ignore the cost-benefit returns in recent years from unmanned exploration. I don't see any sign of him cutting that aspect of the program, though. It's interesting to see criticism from the left over this. That position may play well with a certain aspect of the base, but it may cost him scientists and engineers. Now if he were to parlay that into a broader initiative to promote private enterprise and development in space exploration, THAT might work.

Gee. He went on to "clarify" his remarks, finding plenty of things to criticize, particularly in the lack of political solidity in the government. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ibDeMEMDEYv4V-eqfWH0lbqZe6RwD8T8CL702 He's quite right, of course. But I suspect he will now feel the wrath of the far-left portion of the blogosphere, which he so pandered to earlier. ABC News reported last night that in the month of November Iraq was actually safer for troops, by twice, than Afghanistan.

No, I've never heard anyone in the entertainment industry suggest nationalization, and isn't THAT interesting? They're happy to push a progressive agenda at everyone else, but when it impacts on their own wallets, not so much. Still, I guess I'm not being entirely fair. They respect the picket line, for the most part, though I think they do that mainly for perception and self-preservation reasons rather than ideological ones. Blacklisting is condemnable when the government does it. When the industry does it to itself, not so much. If you want to work in the creative center of world's foremost movement to defend freedom and independence and personal choice, you'd better stay in line and do as you're told.

If you want to start a new thread to discuss those points I'll be happy to move some messages for you. I've never quite bought the argument that Clinton was directly responsible for the surplus, and we haven't discussed that issue in a while so it might be interesting.

From the Huffington Post (so it's probably skewed left): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071105/hollywood-labor/ I guess you're right (write?) iNow -- starting salary is only about twice what we pay veteran teachers in this country. How come teachers aren't included in this bargaining agreement? Aren't we all supposed to be paid a fair, living wage? Gosh -- and here I thought Hollywood writers were supposed to be progressive! Turns out they're greedy capitalists just like everyone else! Another amusing aspect of this is that the writers' guild wants reality programs included in the collective agreement. You know, those shows that aren't supposed to be pre-written! The deal also includes writers of Jon Stewart's "The Daily Show", often touted as the primary news source for young people these days. I don't think I even need to write a punch line for that one.

What case do they make? They ALL make that kind of money, Sisyphus. According to what I've read, writing staff for television shows START at $200k. The only writers who "don't make that kind of money" are the ones who are unemployed. That's why they're only making residuals. So if they're only making residuals, then guess what? They're not on strike! (duh) Meanwhile the "little guy" keeps getting screwed. The guy who holds the cue cards, the guy who aims the microphone, the guy who books guests, all those guys -- none of them make anything like what writers make. A fraction. But they're not part of an elite, powerful guild. So they're out of luck. Gosh, that union thing sure is great!

What's probably of interest here more than anything else is the effect this may have on Hillary's support amongst women.

ROFL! Well that reasoning might actually work if it weren't for the fact that most of my neighbors used to be yours! "My parents just moved down to Florida. They didn't want to, but, you know, they turned 65 and that's the law." -- Jerry Seinfeld

This thing has been amusing to me, the notion that Hollywood writers, who make a LOT of money (hundreds of thousands per year or more), would go on strike over money. It's akin to the baseball players going on strike a few years ago. Oddly enough, it hasn't generated the same adverse reaction in the media. I guess entertainment writers are more politically correct than steroid-chomping baseball jocks. But now the strike is starting to cost much-lower-paid-entertainment workers their jobs. This article talks about NBC workers getting laid off. The article linked above headlines the fact that the laid-off workers are mad at Jay Leno, because he promised them that wouldn't happen. But these workers are also seriously peeved at the writers for going on strike in the first place. Wow! Can I get some champaign and caviar on that picket line?! But the real prize has to go to the picket line workers who started putting out video blogs on the Internet documenting their time and trying to get the story out. They're mad in part because they're not being paid for the use of their work in new media. But how did they advertise this fact? By using new media! Why? BECAUSE IT'S FREE! But they still want to get paid when their work appears on it! ROFL!!! Yeah yeah ok, there's advertising. Fine. Throw 'em a few bucks and lets get the REAL workers their jobs back.

I'm not sure I can go along with that....... (grin) Okay okay, on a more serious note -- yes we do often seem to listen to empower groups with authority more than individuals. There's the "herd mentality" effect at work, as well as the "mob psychology" effect, which is a little different. I think these things have negative as well as positive connotations, as you suggest in the OP. Not only is it contrary to the notion of representative government, but it's also sometimes just downright dangerous ("Somebody get a rope!"). Have you read Malcolm Gladwell? In "The Tipping Point" he has some interesting insights along these lines, focusing more on what kinds of individuals we DO pay attention to. I thought it was interesting.

Hmm, I'm not sure. What do the rest of you guys think??

ROFL! If Fox News Channels had pulled something like that it would be on every front page and the top story on every network news show for the next week.

I do.

As much as I've always liked McCain, I'm afraid I have to agree with iNow that his potential as a "uniter" is pretty low. Whether that's the fault of his position on certain issues, or the degree of opposition he typically faces, is open to debate, but one need look no further than the typical reception he gets at a college campus these days in order to see how unlikely he is to unite this country. I think a "uniter" could come from the right, but no one in the current field leaps out at me with that kind of potential.

CNN bias is as obvious as FNC bias, and neither is exactly what its critics like to portray it as.

What have I said in this thread, or anywhere else, that suggests to you that I would disagree with that? If you don't want to talk about the video anymore, fine, but please don't put words in my mouth.