Pangloss

The second half of Woodward's story was posted today. I think this link should work, but if not look for it off their front page at washingtonpost.com.

Well there was a bit of humorous exaggeration intended to be obvious, but the general idea of it comes from a fully sourced discussion about the 2000 Census (when DVD players were much more expensive, btw), which is still available here on the board. I'm scratching my head because I thought you participated in that, but it's possible you were away at the time. The real point is that it seems to me that we do not know how many poor people there are in this country. We only know how many people aren't keeping up with the Jonses. I saw a news story last night about how the gap between the haves and have-nots is the highest it's ever been. So what? I care about people starving in the streets. I don't care about whether every single one of my fellow countrymen can afford a BMW and an X-Box 360. Nor should I be forced to pay for that, which is, so far as anybody can PROOVE, exactly what we're talking about. If Edwards wants to talk about problems in the health care industry, social inequalities (ala racism in the justice system, education system, disaster relief, etc), or actually helping the homeless (if he can find any), I'm all ears. But if he's just going to spout rhetoric that sounds like one thing but actually means something else, then I'm not interested.

January of the year before the election has become the "traditional start" of the campaign season. In reality, several leading candidates, including Edwards, have already been canvasing Iowa and New Hampshire (the first two primary states) for the past year. It's also about fundraising. It takes a long time to raise money (or at least establish the mind share necessary to get people to sign checks). What's screwed up is the primary system. We've talked about this before, and probably the best solution would be to have a national primary, where all states vote at the same time, using the same rules, just like the general election.

Well John Edwards threw his hat into the ring today. Unfortunately it fell into levee mud and got pretty dirty. What do you all think? Serious run or just a play for the loony left? He's staking out a pretty specific campaign focus, and I have to say it's not a traditionally popular one. What poor people is he going to help, exactly? The ones with two cars, a house, a DVD player, a game boy for each child, and 13 maxed-out credit cards, that the Census Bureau says are "living beneath the poverty line"? (I can help those folks right now -- just hand me their credit cards.) But seriously, I cannot remember a presidential run being based on a less popular issue. He might as well be announcing that he's going to throw away the Social Security lock box. What the heck is he thinking? It'll be interesting to see if his statistics on the poor wax and wane along with his popularity numbers.

Well remember, SOX only affects publically-traded companies. Smaller companies tend to be private. If they don't think they can handle SOX requirements, they don't have to go public in the first place. (Of course there could be a short-term impact on companies that went public and are now struggling for whatever reason and can't afford to "convert" everything to SOX, but I'm not sure that's a significant long-term concern.)

Bob Woodward interviewed Gerald Ford back in 2004, but Ford asked him not to publish the interview until after his death. The interview was published today in the Washington Post, and may be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html The most notable comment (and presumably the reason Ford asked him to wait) is Ford's position on Iraq. This may sound like obvious hindsight, but remember -- Ford wasn't running for anything when he said this. He has no political axe to grind here. And he made these comments in 2004, when things were not nearly so bleak. The interview is also interesting, talking about removing Rockefeller from the ticket and so forth. Those of us who've been around long enough to remember those days will find it interesting, anyway. That's a bit far back even for me, but it's always interesting to see what former presidents think about specific political matters many years after they've left office. Whatever you thought about them while they were in office, they are certainly key witnesses to history.

Agreed. It's also a basic premise of our current economic system -- a given, if you will. Not Marxist at all, except perhaps in the eyes of those unfamiliar with how the system works (but hey, that's what we're here for, to discuss and learn). I think it's a reasonable suggestion, but it's too soon to make a call like that. It's only been four years since Sarbanes-Oxley was signed, and it's going to take some time to see if we've created enough legislation to eliminate the Tycos and Enrons. I believe it is possible for non-governmental auditing to be effective (and in fact I believe that it IS effective 99% of the time). The failure to disclose in the case of Enron was due to Arthur Andersen having a conflict of interest in its business dealings with Enron -- in other words, it was making far more money consulting with Enron than it could possibly make auditing it. Remove the conflict of interest and that whole entire fiasco never happens -- and without a dime spent on bureaucratic oversight.

Moved from Politics to General.

I think your assessment is accurate on those counts. Interesting graphs. I haven't been by that site in ages. Speaking for myself, that's not really enough of a difference to chastise one or elevate the other, but I suppose it's enough of a difference for George Will to pontificate about. (chuckle) (BTW, you use Firefox, right? Does OnTheIssues still sneak ads past Firefox popup blockage? That used to be one of the only sites that could do that, back when I first used FF, but I haven't been by there in a while. I'm using IE7 at the moment (on the road at the moment, using someone else's computer) and it seems to be stopping them, although they seem to appear briefly in a new window before the blocker nabs 'em.)

Yes, at the moment I'm having a hard time seeing any inroads to that particular area of politics for Hillary. Bascule's summary is pretty apt; her voting record is clear. (Notably unlike that of Obama, who some observers, like George Will, feel is actually the more liberal of the two.) But she's pretty savvy; the real goals here may be more subtle. Note the point I made above about reaching out to the African-American community.

One thing I don't see in the OP is any indication of whether you knew about your wife's position on jewelry before you permitted your daughter to wear some. And if not, why not. Most parents consider jewelry and makeup to fall under the range of permissive behavior that has to be governed following a parental decision. Why didn't that take place? I'm not saying you did anything wrong there -- it's certainly possible that the subject didn't come up (a simple, understandable oversight amidst the vast number of parenting decisions that have to be made), but the reaction to arriving at that kind of realization should never be "well she's wrong and I'm right" -- it should be "ok we goofed not thinking about this one in advance -- let's sit down and iron it out". So here's a crazy idea: Maybe you should talk to your wife and find out if her objections are really religious in nature. She's obviously not above religious compromise (having married you, you heathen!), so perhaps there's more here than meets the eye. It may be a simple as a negative childhood experience or a preconception about parenting. Whatever the case may be, you two obviously have to decide, together, what's right for the child and then enforce that decision together. The fact that the child is heartbroken and crying is the result of bad/inconsistent parenting, not jewelry (or lack thereof). Kids are far more resourceful and able to get over things than adults. And finally, what does any of this have to do with politics?

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/121306/faithguru.html Reading between the lines a bit, it's important to note that this isn't a defensive move. Strider's role won't be to help her avoid false moves or mis-steps (or even making sure the one-ring gets to Mordor). His job is to help promote her candidacy in religious circles. It's called "faith-based outreach", and it's going to be very important in 2008. With Hillary it's extra-important, because not only does she need it to appeal to moderate conservatives, but she also needs it to help her with African-American "base" voters in the primaries if Obama commits.

Not many people realize this, but Dan Brown is actually on the Bush payroll as a spin doctor. His job is to write about popular conspiracy theories, but to do so in the most literarily pathetic way possible, thereby undermining any credibility those theories may have within the intellectual community. This helps to improve support for government. Don't tell anyone!

I'm inclined to agree. Restraint on free press is something that should always be undertaken only with great care and deliberation. I am amenable to taking a closer look at how blogs affect society and whether some changes should be undertaken. One of the tidbits in Eric Burns' "Infamous Scribblers" that I thought was interesting was a law that was passed in early America (I forget the details of the law) that involved forcing reporters to use their real names rather than aliases (which was the common practice). I don't believe that law exists anymore (some sort of temporary thing, as I dimly recall, perhaps during the Revolution?), but in our media it's actually not neecssary because reporters have a culture of responsibility, and using their real names is an important part of that. Bloggers may need some adjustments in this area. But how to do that without spoiling the atmosphere that makes blogging a useful tool, that I don't know. It's important to keep in mind here as well that formal anonymous publishing also still plays an important role in the media. That is, of course, exactly what they want those of you in "the base" to think, at least through the initial primaries. But to win they need the support of moderates. If Hillary is the Democrat on the ticket on November 4, 2008, you're not going to vote for a pro-game Republican, especially if the Repub has a James Dobson endorsement. But moderates might. So it gives her something while costing her nothing. (Sucks to be a partisan, doesn't it?) And frankly video games just don't have much representation on K street. What does Hillary really care about a few inconvenienced gamers who are probably downloading their warez illegally anyway? (I love that irony, btw -- video gamers downloading illegally and then complaining about politicians about game censorship. They deliberately avoid the system, and then think they have a right to voice an opinion about how the industry is handled? Pathetic.)

The atheist politician is almost unheard-of in the US, where the formula for electoral success is a wife, two children, and Sunday services. So ingrained into domestic politics is it that exceptions really stand out. Florida's new governor-elect raised eyebrows because he's -- *gasp* -- divorced! Former NYC Mayer Rudy Giuliani has been divorced *twice*. Oddly enough, both are Republicans. But a-religious candidates and office-holders do appear from time to time, particularly in local politics (city councils, county government, law enforcement, etc). I don't know the answer to the question, but I can add one additional element of consideration, which is that of tradition. In the case of the President, for example, a specific "Masonic" Bible is used, which is a tradition that dates back to George Washington. I believe a number of states (particularly the original 13) have similar traditions. It's unlikely that a new governor/president would throw out that particular tradition.

My personal opinion on the legalization of marijuana is that aside from ideological libertarians, proponents of the issue are mainly self-serving hypocrits who are uninterested in dealing with the serious ramifications to society of drug abuse -- they just want their drug of choice to be cheaper and not carry the risk of imprisonment. Even worse, I think if any prescription drug carried the side effects or dangers that marijuana is already KNOWN to carry, then the argument would be about money-grubbing drug companies and how they're willing to kill their own customers just to show a profit. Until these issues are dealt with, I think the issue of legalization is moot and trivial. We're not mature enough as a society to settle these far simpler questions, so we're certainly not mature enough to handle this one.

What the heck is "achall"?

Why did she run off to the principle's office?

Again, I'm not talking about left-versus-right. I'm talking about the current political environment and what's likely to happen/not happen over the next year. I agree that, in the overall scheme of things, moderate liberals bashing video games (and rap records, etc), is not new. What's new is the current political environment (the 2008 presidential race and the composition of the 110th congress) and the fact that that's going to breathe new life into this issue. Just to give a counter-example, look at what's happened to gun control. Democrats have allowed that issue to languish and fall off the radar screen. They're "picking their battles". And one of the battles they're clearly picking is video games. That doesn't mean video games will be attacked directly. They may simply be used as a bargaining chip at the negotiating table. But they are very much "in play". That's why I'm talking about it and exploring the hypocrisy of this usage.

Congratulations, Bascule, you completely missed the point of this thread in your zeal to paint me with a color that everyone here knows won't stick. Absolutely nowhere above did I "blame the entire problem on 'the left'". Simply didn't happen. That's your assumption, and it's an incorrect one at that. In point of fact, I whole heartedly agree that the political right is the primary threat to video game freedom of expression. This is old news. Assumed. Given. So ingrained into the fabric of American society that I think my dog is at least dimly aware of it. So well known that I see no reason to even discuss it. It's simply not very interesting. What IS interesting, however, is that now Republicans are not alone. Given the number of Democrats running for President (a race which requires movement to the center in order to capture moderate voters), as well as the current balance of power in government, with Democrats unable to override a veto or even a Senate filibuster, the fact that Democrats support this particular abridgement to our freedom of speech is quite interesting. In fact I expect it to be one of the most interesting subplots and bargaining chips of the 110th Congress. I'm sorry if that disturbs your must-be-one-or-the-other worldview, but there it is. (shrug)

I was robbed! BTW, Time actually put a *mirror* on the cover of their print edition. Kinda cheesy really, but I thought their choice was an apt one.

You're right. It's worse. Perhaps not in this case -- WalMart may well deserve the criticism. But I'm much more concerned about the sheeple feeding at the trough of special interest groups than I am about the careless creation of new legislation.

Incidentally, according to the Census Bureau's annual report (which came out this past week), divorce has dropped to a rate last seen in 1970.

Riiiiiight. Because we all know that's how special interest groups work, just calmly informing corporations of their grievances, then politely sitting back and letting them make their own choices, respecting their right to make their own choice. That's surely what will happen here! They were "simply petitioning"! That's all! Why, I'm sure this story leaked to the media purely through some bizarre accident! They probably didn't even want us to know about this minor complaint, since they surely assumed WalMart would take care of it all on their own, without any need for fuss and bother. Yes, that must be it.

Wow, what an honor! http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2732069