Pangloss

We're going to be wrapping this up over the weekend, so please keep your suggestions coming.

On a personal level I was very happy with this decision. In terms of political analysis, I heard an interesting story on NPR last night which basically said that while the decision will not likely be appealed, we may see this fight take on a different tone in the future, with ID supporters distancing themselves further from the religious aspects of their cause. Some analysts believe that had they done that here, the judge's basis for throwing out the case would have been essentially undermined. It's an interesting point. I'm not entirely sure I agree with it, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was exactly the next step that creationists take.

Since we've been discussing this in the thread here, I thought you guys might find this story over at MSNBC interesting, about the way the NSA is changing with the times. It has a lot of little tidbits about how they're incorporating newer data mining and artificial intelligence techniques to analyze data on a mass scale rather than individual cases at random (which we've talked about previously in this thread). http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561911/ A couple of interesting quotes from this lengthy article:

I'm not sure we really want to review whole Iraq war debate. Not that either of you have been inappropriate, but at some point I'm probably going to close it off, just because it's very old territory. But for the moment I'm content to just point out that this debate has been done a number of times, and both sides have scored equally valid points, and I would encourage you to instead perhaps seek to find some common ground (just to give it a new twist, eh?).

Hey, I was wondering if I'd get a reply on this! Thanks! I was starting to think i was totally out in left field here. (grin) Just to clarify, I was thinking that the Navy/Marines would NOT go into another country, but would in fact stay in international waters and patrol only there. All of the piracy events that I know of have taken place 60-80 miles off the coast of Somalia (because the freighters are smart enough to stay that far out). In terms of entering another conflict, I would think that the limited scope I've defined here would actually prevent any kind of slippery slope. I just want to shoot the fools out of the water, not bomb their homes. Do you really think the US Navy is incapable of policing the relatively small operating range of 20-30 foot, outboard-powered seacraft, crewed by men with only RPGs and AK-47s? Really? I'm a little a-boggle on that one, but maybe that's my fault if I gave the impression that I was advocating another invasion of Somalia -- I'm definitely not.

Interesting post. Let me just prelude my response by saying that a president can be impeached for anything -- just like being sued. The standard of evidence is "anything the House feels like it is". So if you want to make the point that the president could be impeached, in theory, I certainly have no problem with that. I do agree with many of your points (and you make them well -- that was a nicely written piece), I'm just not sure they're going to be sufficient grounds to bring about an actual impeachment (on a realistic basis), even if Democrats win control in 2006. Still, if you'd asked me back in the day if I thought Clinton would be impeached for lying about having an affair with Monica Lewinsky (etc), I would have said "not in a million years". And the outrage against Bush (right or wrong) is certainly as great or greater than the outrage against Clinton.

O'Reilly isn't a "centrist", but I wouldn't call him a "conservative" either, unless you absolutely insist that there are only two kinds of people in the world: liberals and conservatives. What O'Reilly is is a "popularist", which is somebody who takes the position that the people are paramount, and individual liberties are more important than laws. This is reflected, for example, in his position that welfare is necessary, government oversight is more important than privatization, and corporations need to be checked and counter-balanced by laws and a ready populace because of their greed. Yes, those are his actual positions. Not exactly a neo-con, is he?

Don't forget to tell us why. A full description is required.

Interesting points. My gut feeling is that you go with what events had impact in the year 2005. Publications, media attention, impact on policy, etc.

Anybody want to make a case for Larry Page and Sergei Brin?

Come on, you guys aren't trying! Let's hear some creativity! I'd like to nominate Max Mayfield of the National Hurricane Center. Not only for his work in keeping the public informed, but in his efforts to keep politics out of the science of meteorology. Dr. Mayfield is, in my view, the epitome of what a "government scientists" should be.

If I remember correctly, a vote of impeachment would require 51% of the House of Representatives anyway (2/3rds to convict). Republicans presently control 53% of the House. The real question here would be what happens after the 2006 congressional election. Should Democrats take a majority, all bets are off.

That entry is a riot, thanks AL.

Actually I think (though perhaps other mods/admins may disagree) that nominations need to have a serious basis. For example, you could validly nominate George Bush on the basis of his impact on funding for embryonic stem cell research, and fueling the debate for increased morality in scientific research. Whether you agree with him or not on the issue is irrelevent for our purposes here. (And in fact any debate on the subject in THIS thread will be unceremoniously squashed by yours truly.) I believe that subject was part of Time's basis for making him Man of the Year in 2004.

Actually as I understand it the general consensus amongst observers is that the timing was due to a leak by Senate Democrats trying to quash the cloture vote on the Patriot Act. For what it's worth.

Do you have a link that you can add to the article above for us? I haven't fully made up my mind on this yet, and I suspect that there are some valid questions being raised here. I tend to agree with you that they're being overshadowed by the media circus that is rapidly developing. The far left has yet another straw man to toss around and fail to get any mileage over, and meanwhile important questions won't get answered because we're too busy firing blanks at one another. (sigh) One thing that I think people should understand is exactly what this 2002 order did (and apparently still does). It means that if a phone call is made to or from a terrorist-watch country, the government has the ability to listen to both halves of the conversation. Previously, if Osama asked "Are the bombs ready?", the NSA couldn't listen to the response. Which of course was idiotic, at least at surface value. Of real import, however, are a number of questions: 1) How easy it was under the 1978 law for investigators to get the necessary court order to listen to the other half of the conversation. Did this red tape stand in the way of investigation? 2) Did the need for a court order prevent more of a mass-scale data analysis of incoming information, such as computer analysis for keywords and other high-tech approaches? 3) Why did the executive branch pursue this without seeking a legal change from congress to the 1978 FISA law? There seems little question that such a change would have been approved in the current post-9/11 climate. Were there legitimate reasons not to pursue such an avenue? I think critics of the administration have some basis for raising concerns here. But I'm very concerned that this will be lost in the hubbub of ire and wrath from the far left, which will no doubt be loudly countered by the ire and wrath of the far right, causing the real issues to become drowned out and ignored. Points to consider: - The 2002 change does not allow the NSA to listen to your annual call to mom from New York to Topeka for Mother's Day. - Many procedures and processes exist; this is not open, unconsidered legal ground. These issues have been debated for decades, and debating them on a serious basis requires a thorough understanding of the issues. - President Bush is not a Sith Lord. For further background reading, I highly recommend James Bamford's two books on the NSA ("The Puzzle Palace" is the first one).

Let me just throw out a few general, categorical suggestions to help get the ball rolling: - Nobel prize winners - Heads of state or other government employees - Corporate and organization leaders

Digital Universe is an upcoming, in-development alternative to the Wikipedia. Founded by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger, DU attempts to address some of the shortcomings of the Wikipedia while maintaining the openness and flexibility of its predecessor. The key element of the project is the idea that while anybody would still be able to post, special content advisors, called "Stewards", who shepherd content accuracy. Unsupervised content would still be accessible in a separated area. From their web site: http://www.digitaluniverse.net/reliable/ CNet has a story on it here: http://news.com.com/Wikipedia+alternative+aims+to+be+PBS+of+the+Web/2100-1038_3-5999200.html And The Register ran a story on it today here, which was picked up by Slashdot: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/19/sanger_onlinepedia_with_experts/ I'm curious what you all think of the idea.

That's an interesting nomination, Silkworm.

After some discussion amongst the staff, we have decided to institute a new annual tradition here at Science Forums and Debate: A Person of the Year contest! For the next six days we would like our members to post nominations of scientists and engineers whom you feel made the biggest contribution during the year 2005. Please reply to this thread to do so, and when you do please include a full description of whom you are talking about, and why you feel their contribution is so important. Once we have your suggestions, the staff will finalize a nominations list, and we will post a list of nominees, which all members will vote on next week. The final vote will be tallied and reported right at the end of the year. Please remember to limit your nominations to science and engineering. That doesn't mean only scientists and engineers; it means people who have had the strongest influence on science and engineering pursuits. Post away!

"Only a Sith lord speaks in absolute terms!" (It cracked me up the way all the stories surrounding the Star Wars Episode 3 comparisons with real-world politics mentioned phrases like Anakin's "with us or my enemy" quote, or several other quotes, but completely missed that the Sith lord quote above directly implies that Palpatine is Bush.)

Well that shows you how much I know about Canadian politics, since here I am throwing around a term like "ousted", which is not a term my friend used. I guess a different term would be more accurate.

CNN has a transcript of the speech here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/18/bush.transcript/ I have not heard it or read it yet. I actually took some time away from politics today (gasp!), although that's not entirely true since I did catch one political show this morning (This Week, on ABC).

It's funny you should mention that, because it kinda points out the fact that while Iranians aren't a semetic people, arabs are. Which is the sort of thing that really makes all these old enmities look really silly. Why aren't the Arabs and Jews allied against their ancient Persian enemy? The randomness of some of these modern grievances is almos as absurd as the irrelevence of them.