Pangloss

1) The US was not the only remaining world power at the end of WW2. 2) Neither of the reasons you listed (which I agree are valid reasons why the US was a world power at the end of WW2) have anything to do with why the US became the first "superpower" or retained that status over the latter half of the 20th century. The reason for that was purely economic, and had nothing to do with war; in fact one can make the argument that it was the absence of war that allowed that status to be obtained and maintained. The point being that you can certainly make an argument that war can vault a country out of a predicament or on top of a geo-political situation. But what we call success today is effective participation in the global economy. War cannot get you that participation, nor can it put you ahead of other nations in that game, or keep you out in front. This is not the ancient world, and many of (if not most of) the rules that worked in the ancient world no longer apply. Certainly there are lessons to be learned, but one of them is not "every nation needs an enemy".

It's not like he said "655,000 Iraqis have died -- who are the real terrorists?" (something Rosie O'Donnel said). Man I wish she would run for president. That would just be FUN.

I'm kinda confused, Snail, how is the LHC viewed as dangerous? Can you elaborate a bit for those of us who don't have access to Horizon? (I've heard you UK folks mention that show before and it sounds like a good program, but I don't think we get episodes of it here unless PBS picks it up once in a blue moon.)

Keep it civil, folks. Calling someone's argument "assinine" is pure ad-hominem, and future such comments may be removed without further notice.

I don't know and I don't care. Not that I object to the question, it just doesn't matter to me as a voter. "Strict constructionist" is a misnomer in most cases. It doesn't mean that they're opposed to all interpretation of any kind. If it means that in the case of Ron Paul I'd be surprised. It's my understanding that he applies the term primarily to display his opposition to pork barrel spending and out-of-control taxation. But I share your concern in the area of wondering whether he'll oppose all forms of compromise. Compromise is an important part of good government. Just because he's not a hardcore right-winger doesn't automatically make him a good moderate candidate, IMO. I disagree that it's a purely ideological argument. There are perfectly reasonable arguments against income tax. But I agree with your assessment about its (income tax's) compromise and moderate ways-and-means value to society. I agree that most people see it as a pure benefit without scratching beneath the surface. Floridians are a good example of that -- always boasting of the fact that we have no state income tax. Meanwhile we pay property tax rates that are just insane. As you say, an income tax would balance that out, sharing the burdon with citizens who don't own property, for example (though that's probably the reason why we won't see an income tax here any time soon -- Jesse Jackson would be down here in a heartbeat).

Word to the wise: There will be no fanboy nonsense in this thread. Serious criticism only. Posts have been removed and infractions issued. This is not Slashdot, kiddies.

Here's one thing I wonder about: What happens if/when there are more sellers than buyers? Isn't that possible if you have, say, more consumer participation that corporate participation? And if so wouldn't that undermine their value? What good is an offset if nobody's doing the offsetting part of the deal?

Yadayadayada. Witty sayings and fanciful slogans don't a case make.

I'm not "hating on" the anti-war crowd, I'm pointing out their similarity to another group. The "progrssion" THAT makes is that it goes to consistency. If we determine that the groups are similar, then we have to be consistent in holding them responsible for their behavior.

I'm not sure I agree, Phil. It's pretty hard to defend the current system of taxation on an objective basis. I do agree that we have more important problems to solve right now, but I can't dismiss him for being "radical", at least on the subject of taxation.

It's part of it, just like when Democrats stymied Federal judicial appointments. Not that Democrats were doing anything new at the time Republicans seem to feel obligated to return the favor. This is part of the gradual erosion of Congressional effectiveness that follows the national trend towards ideological partisanship. Republicans should change this strategy, IMO. We need the student loan legislation and other education spending changes, we need the immigration compromise (one of the best examples of the strength of compromise in recent years, IMO), and we need other measures passed as well. Republicans have been telling us for six years about the President's prerogatives having won the election(s). How about letting Congress exercise its prerogatives after the election(s)? But the only thing that's going to change this is for people to stand up and tell them to knock it off. Apparently an approval rating south of the President's just isn't enough.

Right. The largest of what? Recent transgressors? Certainly that. But this is a group that has been vocal and active ever since Vietnam. I don't think they give a fig about Bush one way or the other. They hate Billary every bit as much as they hate George. They're left-wingers, but they're not Democrats.

Well let me clarify, then. The specific group I want to talk about in this thread is the anti-war crowd in general. Not the anti-Iraq war crowd. With regard to Iraq specifically, I want to talk about that sector of the anti-Iraq War crowd that opposes the Iraq war on the more general anti-war grounds, not the specifics of the Iraq War that most people find objectionable, such as the lack of WMDs or the failure to avoid civil war, etc. Having clarified that, I still think it's a valid point that the anti-war crowd is a more specific focus group than the religious right. But I don't know that that necessarily invalidates the comparison. I'll have to give it some thought. Right, or to use my clarification, the religious right is more generalized than the anti-war crowd as well. So I think you're right to point out that the comparison is not 100%. But are there similarities?

Two examples: - War is sometimes necessary, such as when you're invaded or attacked, or helping an ally who has been invaded or attacked; that's the reality of the world - There is also a political reality that the anti-war crowd obtusely ignores; politicians often have to compromise in order to move an agenda forward (something ideological partisans always struggle with) The angst they're experiencing at the moment over the war spending bill (discussed in the article I posted) is a typical example. They're angry because Democrats "caved", when in fact Democrats had no choice. There was no "win" scenario there.

I got on his mailing list somehow. Have you been getting those emails? I suspect he got a list from the RNC, since I get their email as well. (I also get email from various Dems, but not from the DNC.) I like him as well, and I agree with many of his positions. He does have some drawbacks and shortcomings from where I sit. He's pro-life, for example, which is not consistent with most libertarians (but not unheard-of or actually contrary to libertarian ideals, IMO). That will help him with the religious right and not hurt him too much with moderates, so that's probably a smart position to take. Giuliani made a mistake attacking Paul over the 9/11 thing. It was misplaced and erroneous, and what Paul is saying resonates very well amongst conservatives, as exemplified by the low poll numbers enjoyed by both the President and Congress.

Is the anti-war crowd the left's version of the religious right? - They're particularly zealous about their beliefs - They don't let reality get in the way of their ideology - They tend to push a general ideology (in this case liberalism) farther than most people want it to go (i.e. they represent an extreme branch of a larger, more mainstream ideological framework) Legitimate comparison, or Panglossian nonsense? Just to help spur the discussion, here's an amusing article about anti-war activists getting their hair all tussled over Democrats "backing down" on the war funding bill: http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_070523.htm

Or in my case teaching programming at a university. Don't judge a book by its cover, friend. CIS/MIS doesn't have to be a second-rate degree. I agree that it often plays out that way, but what it NEEDS to be is a middle ground between business management and information technology. How many MBAs graduate each year, with barely enough computer know-how to manipulate a mouse and create a letter in Microsoft Word? SOMEBODY has to understand how to manage and manipulate the corporate database. And it sure as shootin' ain't gonna be a CS type. THEY should be busy inventing the next great killer app.

I still have a couple. I'll replace them with CFs when they fail. I've never quite understood why some incandescents die almost immediately while others seem to last forever. Drives me crazy. That was a big reason behind wanting to switch to CF.

Sure, I agree with all that. I even agree that it shouldn't be a left-versus-right issue. But there's no question that both sides are spinning this subject madly. That's a bit like saying that whether we withdraw from Iraq shouldn't be a left-versus-right issue. (shrug)

Egad, you're probably right. (I saw an ad last night for a new reality show called something like "Pirates", in which the participants play members of a crew on a sailing vessal dressed as 19th century pirates!)

That doesn't really debunk offsets, though. It only addresses their shortcomings and people's misunderstandings about what they do. The star-naming analogy is an apt one, I think. There's nothing wrong with setting up a "registry" to store private names for stars. How do people think stars got their names in the first place? Tradition based on private (societal) naming (we just call it "mythology"). So long as people understand that it's not a name that will necessarily be recognized by any international body, it's fine. The problem arises not because a private organization has set up a private star registry, but because of the fact that people don't understand how star naming conventions work amongst astronomical organizations. This also points out one of the common flaws in left-wing reasoning. Some people don't understand and/or abuse a thing, therefore that thing, whatever it is, needs to be stopped. If star-naming scams were a serious problem (i.e. big numbers), or if they adversely impacted a specific minority group, the left would be all over putting a stop to star naming. Same deal here -- some people abuse carbon offsets, therefore the idea of carbon offsets itself needs to be banned/stopped/shunned/ostracized/whatever. On a more positive and supportive note, that's just about the only way to wake people up to the truth about something, so I guess I have to support that. But I can't say that you've convinced me not to buy carbon offsets. Not based on that reasoning, at any rate. I need something more substantive and applicable to the concept itself. Put another way, hybrid vehicles have been a disappointment. They're not going to single-handedly stop global warming. But that doesn't mean we should stop making them. It just points out the fact that the climb we have ahead of us is a little steeper than we realize.

Look out Soccer Moms, here come the SAFs! SAF = "Single Anxious Female". Under 30, unmarried, uneducated, unaffluent, and "thoroughly pissed off at the direction of America". (Maybe because they spend too much time watching Grey's Anatomy and not enough time reading a textbook?) Sounds like something a mean-spirited Republican pollster would come up with, right? Wrong. It's the invention of a women's political group as part of a get-out-the-vote effort and a major focus area for the Hillary Clinton campaign. Apparently this is one of the fastest-growing voter groups. Now I'm concerned about the direction of the country! Anyway, here's an article: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/32135/

Well okay, but doesn't that create a de facto situation where people in "public life" are considered valid targets for bigotry? BTW, the Rutgers university women's basketball team and its members are public figures. Perhaps not as out-there as some public figures, but I don't think that point would even come up if it were the men's basketball team.

Actually the Lightning II "B" variant is VTOL capable, it just won't typically take off that way due to payload. The "A" and "C" variants being produced for the Air Force and Navy won't have the central lifting fan -- no VTOL or STOL. The "B" variant being produced for the Marines will have the fan. There is an interesting controversy brewing in armed forces circles about whether the Navy will carry the "B" variant for Marine wings stationed on the 10 nuclear super-carriers. The Navy wants nothing but F-35Cs on its flight decks. That would limit the VTOL model to the Marine-only (smaller) carriers.

That's not VB you're talking about. The simplicity and ease-of-use you're describing are features of the IDE and the underlying managed code, and the easy access to the operating system's graphical interface that the managed code provides. It would work exactly the same way in any of the .NET languages. You'd just be typing your "parameters" a different way. Just as a side note, misconceptions like that are really pushing the Microsoft programming community to dump VB, not so much because it's a bad language, but just to simplify the picture. These days all the ASP developers start out learning VB syntax, and then promptly have to learn the C++/Java syntax because they're having to spend so much time in Javascript, XML, C#, etc. Dumping VB would solve all that and bring the MS programming community in line with what everyone else is doing. As Gandalf might say, "One syntax to rule them all, and in the runtime bind them."