Pangloss

You're joking, right? I dunno, maybe the fact that 82 House Republicans voted for it. Or maybe it could be the very that virtually every Senate Republican voted on some form of increase the minimum wage over the last three years. Or maybe it could be the fact that Senate Republicans are reeling from that 2006 election and know very well that MW is something they're going to have to cave in on. Yeah I can't imagine where I got that crazy idea.... But I don't even know why you're asking, since it's clear the President plans to sign it. Especially since the Finance Committee has already added his requested tax incentives for small businesses affected by the MW increase, which the Senate and most of the House (including Harry Reid) agree with.

I don't think he'll veto minimum wage, both because there's enough votes to override that, and because it's been generally accepted for a while now that an increase was going to happen (not that I agree with it). He'll certainly veto the stem cell research bill. Regarding impeachment, I specifically heard Pelosi in two interviews before the election take impeachment off the table. The only people talking about impeachment these days are the politically irrelevent ABB crowd. She's there to do a job. Wondering why she hasn't turned the country blue overnight is pretty silly.

No, but I hear one of the Duke Lacross players was found naked in an alleyway with the word "whitey" scribbled all over him.

Pardon me, it's my definitions that need a little work (casualties = injured, not just killed). I apologize for my error.

Ran across this stat on This Week with George Stephanopoulos: Legislation / GOP Support 9/11 Commission / 68 votes Minimum Wage / 82 votes Stem Cells / 37 votes Drug Costs / 24 votes Student Loans / 124 votes Energy Policy 36 votes (Average = 62) Intersting, isn't it? Kinda makes you wonder (amongst other things) why student loans weren't fixed during the previous Congress. George Will made the point that the student loan thing is interesting because it essentially amounts to a subsidy for profitable banks and middle class college graduates! An amusing point, to be sure, but I think it's one to chalk up to sanity and reason. Thank god they didn't look at it that way!

Your math needs a little work.

It wasn't a subsidy in the sense that it was intended to make them more profitable. If memory serves, the money was intended to be used in the search for more domestic sources for oil, in an effort to make us less energy dependent. As I understand it the recent deep-water strikes are a direct result of this investment, and those strikes are supposed to increase the domestic potential by a large amount. At any rate, the subsidies were put in place before the majority of the speculation that drove gas prices to record highs. Had it happened the other way around I doubt the subsidies would have passed (even if they were a good idea). My personal opinion is that they were probably not worth the investment. The oil companies had (even in the 1998-2002 time frame) more than sufficient incentive and capital to explore all potential revenue sources. Balancing the budget is more important.

What promises are you disatisfied about? I think she's a mixed bag so far. She stood her ground on what would have been two controversial (unethical) chairmanship appointments (Hastings and Jefferson). Those appointments would have been pretty hypocritical given all the fuss about Republican ethics and reforming the House. But she was under a LOT (and I mean a *LOT*) of political pressure to make those appointments, and deserves serious credit for not making them. That having been said, I continue to be disapointed with her grandstanding and demogogery on Iraq. She continues to portray issues as if they are domestic political issues rather than international realpolitik issues. For example, she said: First of all they're not going "into harm's way" for another 8-9 months, and Congress will have ample opportunity to set (or not set) funding on that deployment before then. And second, you can't *not fund* a deployment that hasn't been announced, so it's a ridiculous statement to begin with. What exactly did Bush stop her from doing? It's just nonsense. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying she doesn't have a valid position on Iraq. I'm just pointing out that some of her positions, from time to time, cross the line in terms of rhetoric. She plays to the left-wing bleachers.

I'm talking off the cuff here (looking for more information), but I've been reading in a couple of places (discussion boards) about how the energy bill contains what ammounts to a new, domestic-only gas tax. Some criticism is starting to take shape suggesting that this may be a bad idea. I don't mean to be vague, but this is a developing thing.

No, and I thought your points were interesting. You're certainly correct in pointing out that I have an imperfect digest of events and am simply expressing my opinion. I never intended otherwise, and I don't have any problem with disagreement on that basis. Well I can add something in terms of furthering the discussion, perhaps. ABC News ran an interesting piece last night about the pressure the Malaki government appears to be putting on al-Sadr and his army. He's apparently been pushed to the point where he (al-Sadr) is acknowledging the pressure and vowing that his army will go on even if he's killed (sounds like a step forward to me). There's also a story running around today that his top aide has been arrested. It's notable that these things are happening *before* any kind of surge is actually taking place (I don't think that's actually slated to happen until late summer or early fall, if memory serves). Perhaps the threat of a ramping up was enough to cause something significant to happen within the Malaki government. Obviously I'm still heavily skeptical about how all this is going to turn out.

You quoted me. That's what I was referring to. If that snipe wasn't aimed at me then that's fine. Given that it came right after you quoted me, it sure looked like it was. If I was wrong, I apologize. Nice chatting with you, as always, RP.

It's interesting that so many Democrats are pinning their hopes on yet another outsider. The similarities to the 1992 Clinton campaign are remarkable. Of course Obama is even more of an outsider, since he was a completely unknown state legislator just two years ago. But the youthful aspect is similar, the fact that he's still a relative outsider to Washington is similar, and so on. It will be interesting to see if he can capture moderate/centrist voters as well as Clinton did (although it's arguable that Clinton never really did, but I think it's clear that Obama will have to). One point in Obama's favor is that (if I'm not mistaken) he's the one and only presidential candidate who has never been in favor of the war in Iraq on any level. At any rate, his honeymoon with the press is now over. Gennifer Flowers redux in 5... 4... 3... 2....

Another powerful episode of Frontline is airing this week on PBS. The first new ep of 2007, the show consists of a documentary made by the brother of one of the victims of Catholic priest abuse in Boston. I know that doesn't sound very exciting or new, but this particular victim has a unique perspective and the twists and turns of his story -- in particular of how the priesthood handled his case -- are fascinating. As with many of their best episodes, this one is supposed to be placed entirely online, beginning on Wednesday. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/handofgod/

Looks like Barack Obama is tossing his hat in the ring, running for US President in 2008. http://news.google.com/?ncl=1112770653&hl=en

Ahem. Did you miss my caveat? I don't think I deserved that personal attack, and posting like that certainly makes you look like you're the one who has something to sell. That's one way to look at it, and I respect your opinion on it. Frankly I hope you're right. But there's a general consensus that your "unity government" is little more than a Shi'a junta. The Iraqi security forces are infiltrated with terrorists and their sympathizers, and even those who don't take sides are barely able to cope, much less act. I was encouraged by the president's appearance on 60 Minutes last night. I am often encouraged by particular details of what's happening over there. But the quote you referenced (and the opinion it reflects) is based entirely on the American political realities. I simply don't believe the surge is going to do anything, and I don't think the situation is going to improve enough in 2007 such that it will be politically viable to maintain a force there during the entire 2008 election cycle. It just is not a realistic belief. But as I said above: Just my two bits, for what it's worth. Doesn't mean I'm "selling something or smoking it".

This is the correct answer. Everything else is emotion/speculation.

Bud, that really sounds like hindsight vision to me. We did try the "rise up and overthrow him yourself" approach before, most notably with the Kurds after Gulf War I, and you remember what happened then. If you're suggesting that we should have done the same but with more active support and involvement, wouldn't you be the first one to criticize that kind of activity, because of all the "civilian deaths" it would have entailed (while we "sit back in safety")? (Part of the purpose of this thread was to point out how hard it is, even with the benefit of hindsight, to find workable solutions that everyone would be happy with. I think this exchange demonstrates that problem really well.)

I'm more or less convinced that the "surge" is moot, and the war is already over. Neither party wants troops in Iraq during the 2008 presidential run. They'll be either home or on their way home by the end of this year. But then I thought we'd never see another shuttle launch, so what do I know.

I don't think that's an accurate statement. I got the impression that friendship was a factor, but if it had been the only factor then he wouldn't have gotten a pardon, he would have gotten leg irons. Ford was mislead and dealt a raw hand, and he knew it full well. He pardoned Nixon because he "wanted it off his desk" (his exact words).

True enough, that's an interesting point. God help us if we DON'T learn more about submission and control, as you so eloquently put it, or it will almost certainly be our downfall. We're are probably standing astride the defining historical moment of the early 21st century. Well I don't claim to have all the answers, but I think we have to stop fighting amongst ourselves for reasons that have nothing to do with the region, but are rather about our own internal and external struggles, such as moral character or global economics (to return to my inflatable tent analogy, we're busy over at the BBQ grill showing off our fancy jewelry and new cars). We have to shake off our reliance on traditional mainstream media, which is rooted in the undermining influence of ratings-based profit, in clear conflict with the even distribution of information. The free Internet has the potential of making that happen, but only if we allow it to do so, which will in part require public investment in private infrastructure along with regulation to guarantee privacy and the integrity of the public domain. That will be painful ("OMG terrorists are using unregulated email!!!!11one!!!", etc), but we don't have any real choice here. And we have to start working together with other nations to suit global purposes, not domestic moral agendas. Mind you, that doesn't mean knuckling under when other countries decide that they can solve their problems by forcing us to do things that they have no interest in doing themselves (i.e. unfair trade practices/restrictions, global warming treaties, etc). But it does mean no more cowboy, big-stick diplomacy (e.g. neo-cons). We have to stop saying "well if they can't play fair, why should we?" My philosophy in a nutshell, for what (little) it's worth.

The reporting on this thing is pretty ridiculous. I can just picture terrorists sitting around planning their next moves, watching some TV, and taking their cues from the media. They know all about the politically correct dogmas about "understanding root causes" and "empathizing with people's struggles" and whatever other nonsense people are using these days. I think it's all a bunch of crap. It's like when a toddler falls down and barks his shins, and then looks around to see if a parent is watching before turning on the waterworks. We're acting like that crazy parent who screams "ohhhhh!!!!!" and runs over to give them attention, and then wonders why they're crying so loud! Here's a tip for the mainstream media: SUNNI EXTREMISTS DON'T NEED A REASON TO KILL SHI'ITES. They have all the incentive they need every time they see a Hummer drive by. Are they watching the same war I am? The Middle East needs to grow the **** up. It's not some ancient cradle of civilization teaching us important lessons about humanity. It's one of those stupid inflatable tents at an overcrowded party for out-of-control five-year-olds, and the parents are too far away to see what's going on. And it'll be fixed when the parents stop screwing around and fix it.

You have a point there. I've never been able to make up my mind about Carter. It may be because his presidency occurs so early in my life. I was 15 in 1980, and actually participated in a high school debate on Carter's side, and got my you-know-what handed to me by little Laura _____ (name withheld since it's a public board). The highlight of my finely honed, elite debating skillz being something along the lines of "well he's only had four years!!!!" (grin) (Hey, maybe I've been trying to make up for that loss ever since!) (rofl) Good to see you back on the boards, btw. Thanks for the article about low attendance -- I hadn't heard about that, and thought it was interesting.

I'm not sure why I would care if the real Saddam wasn't executed. Fellow Sunni or not, Osama HATED Hussein (as so many people kept reminding us whenever the Bush administration tried to connect Hussein to 9/11). Hussein tortured and executed Sunnis who disagreed with him without blinking an eye, and even worse, he failed to protect Sunni rule. The idea that he's going to become a martyr for Sunni extremists now is pretty laughable. (Like they need an excuse to blow Shi'ites up anyway.)

Nonsense. Ford is one of only four presidents whose disapproval rating never topped 50% (source). (The others being Kennedy, Eisenhower and FDR.) He certainly wasn't LOVED, carrying one of the lowest overall approval ratings of any presidency (source). But it's a HUGE stretch to say he was "hated". Ignored, seen as a tool, dismissed as irrelevent, perhaps. But not hated. Reagan certainly had his bad spells, but he frequently enjoyed very high approval ratings and was much admired and praised during his tenure. Certainly there were people who hated both of these men, but that is not the implication of your statement. Know who else was hated as president? All of them. But not one of them was hated by everybody. So no, the idea that Reagan and Ford were hated by all and are now loved by all is ridiculous. These overblown posthumous celebrations are being manufactured out of whole cloth by a story-starved news media. There is nothing more to it than that, and they are never more transparent then they are right now. By the way, you think it's bad now, just wait until ol' Jimmy croaks. Now THERE was a man who was hated while in office. But he'll be absolutely deified, just you wait and see.

BTW, if there are any poor people in this country, I'm sure John Edwards will find them. You know, using his psychic powers and all.