Pangloss

Hm, I guess that's true enough. I wonder if I didn't notice that that was an example of confirmation bias because I agree with it.

World leaders at the G-20 Summit told President Obama over the weekend that they're done with stimulus. The press, which has been asking for months when the spending spree will end, without batting an eye immediately pounced, questioning whether the spending cuts would be "too deep" and cause the recession to be extended or worsened. ABC News really tore it up, but this Washington Post piece says more or less the same thing in written form. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/27/AR2010062701754.html

Uh, public primary teachers in Florida start at more than twice that amount -- $34,606. The average for a teacher with a bachelor's degree is $43,745. With a masters it climbs to $51,064, and with a PhD or "specialist" (a kind of ABD subdoctorate) it hits about $57k. (Source: Florida Department of Education, note: PDF) I believe the lowest of those numbers is above the national average. For everyone. But I have no idea how that matches up with other states.

"Asexual self righteous demigods"?? Well don't mince words, Moon, tell us what you really think!

President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan apparently sees value in limiting free speech. And some of the instances of her expressing this opinion were notably absent from documents submitted as part of her confirmation process. Specifically, a speech she gave in 1993 (while not employed by any administration) offering suggestions for how to eliminate pornography. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39034.html Porn is considered by many a dead subject, but it has not been that way for very long. The Bush administration was days away from launching a "war on porn" via the Ashcroft Justice Department in the fall of 2001. 9/11 shelved those plans, and the issue has seemed relatively closed, at least on the national level, since that time. But the concerns held by some observers, in particular free-speech advocacy groups, is not limited to a 17-year-old, 12-minute speech. In 2009 her argument for the Obama administration in favor of bans on animal cruelty videos was roundly rejected by an 8-1 Supreme Court rejection. She was employed by the Obama administration, representing her client, but note this particular bit: Perhaps she was instructed to use the phrase "minimal value"; perhaps not. But what's interesting is that she used the phrase "low-value speech" in a much older law review piece -- the one that stemmed from the speech mentioned above regarding pornography. I think this addresses not only the question of her stance on free speech, but also the question of whether the positions she's recently argued before the Supreme Court while representing the Obama administration represent her views. What do you think?

ABC News ran a piece on Friday saying that Congress has pretty much thrown in the towel on further bailouts, stimulus, and any further exceptions to PAYGO. No new spending will be considered unless money is cut from other programs to pay for it. PAYGO or no-go. Two weeks ago the President said he needed $50 billion in aid to states or up to 300,000 teachers would be laid off. That proposal is dead. Congress also stopped short of extending unemployment benefits this week, saying that they didn't have a way to pay for it. Sadly, Democrats are pushing back against their moderate partners and Republicans, pushing for more spending and more aid programs. The story comes from Jonathan Karl and can be found in video form here: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/congress-money-11017927

I think it was pretty much on point, iNow, but you're welcome to show me where you think that I'm missing something.

Bring up the issues, ajb -- we're curious. What's it all about?

As an axiom, I'm not sure that works. Just to give a counter-example, Bill O'Reilly defends/attacks both liberal and conservative viewpoints, but still exhibits a significant amount of confirmation bias (IMO). But perhaps this is due to his having a third political position, distinct from liberals and conservatives, which I usually describe as "populist". Jon Stewart has a pretty obvious ideological preference preference, but I don't think it could really be described as, say, an agenda. Maybe that's part of it.

The Obama administration says it's going to file a lawsuit against Arizona over its new immigration law on the basis that only the Federal government can deal with matters of immigration. But the courts have said that states can enforce immigration law. Here are a number of appellate decisions that were not (for whatever reason) overturned by the Supreme Court. And in this 2005 Supreme Court decision, we find a ruling related to the questioning of an individual on his immigration status by a local law enforcement official: So why is the administration bringing this case, exactly? Could this be just a play to the base, knowing that they'll lose and can then blame the courts instead of taking the heat themselves? Here's a source for the above quotes, and the cases can be found in various sources including the Wikipedia. http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/WalterMooreSays.com/Blog/Entries/2010/4/30_Arizona_Police_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html

That's an interesting idea. For a question as broad as "good president", obviously you would need a fairly large number of question-answer samples, otherwise they can just weasel out with an "everyone makes mistakes", etc. I like it. It might be interesting to try and create a formula for rating pundits based on the degree to which they leverage confirmation bias. It strikes me that Jon Stewart doesn't use it as much as Glenn Beck, for example, but that's a completely subjective (and rather obvious) opinion. But if it could be quantified it might make an interesting (and possibly useful) unit of measure.

I have a conservative friend who has gradually built up his anti-Obama crusade over time, building each event one on top of the other, as if that actually makes sense. Every time something happens, he just tacks it onto the end of the long chain of "reason" he's put together, as if he had an open mind at the beginning and only gradually came by his considered opinion. Unfortunately I think this sort of thing is actually commonplace. I suspect my friend is just more open about it than most people are. (I think I'll send him this article and see what he says.)

Rolling Stone magazine is not affiliated with the rock group The Rolling Stones. If memory serves, the name in both cases originates from an old Muddy Waters song that Bob Dylan used to perform. And of course the term originally comes from the old proverb about not gathering moss.

But I like prattle.... Good memory on "Betrayus", waitforufo. Given Afghanistan's and the troops' enthusiastic welcome of his selection, I wonder if MoveOn.org regrets that moniker now. They certainly aren't touting it on their front page at the moment, and the ad referenced in this ABC News article from 2007 (talking about the ad) seems to have been removed from their site. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Decision2008/story?id=3581727&page=1 (Of course, the fact that the military surge (if not the final political goals) actually succeeded might have something to do with that as well.)

You're doing fine.

BTW, guys, just FYI, when you double-quote, you have to end-quote twice as well. For example (using parentheses instead of brackets): (quote=ParanoiA)(quote=Pangloss)What's the best way to run a society?(/quote)From each according to his ability, to each according to his need!(/quote) Would appear as: [/b]

Well at least part of the drama stems from the fact that it doesn't usually happen in such a public manner. I agree. Yeah it seems a bit off to me as well. There may be some small piece to the story that we just haven't heard (as iNow points out very well above). As I often report here. And that's what makes politics interesting.

This is one of those events that doesn't seem to fit neatly into ideological niches. I heard both Democrats and Republicans approving of the firing, and I also heard both liberal and conservative observers (including both Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly) say that the article didn't seem that bad. I'm not sure exactly what this event tells us. Perhaps it says something about President Obama's sensitivity to disloyalty, but if it does I don't know that it will be something specific to him personally -- it could be more of an "office" sort of thing (President Bush was notorious in his demand for loyalty). Or perhaps it says something about the need to have subordinates, at that level, stay on message 24/7. Perhaps time will tell.

What a fast-moving story. On Monday night the press secretary handed President Obama a pre-release copy of a Rolling Stone article quoting General McChrystal and his aids as being critical of some administration officials, and today the general was recalled to Washington and called "immature" by the President himself right from the Cabinet Room. Politico has a pretty decent run-down on the situation here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38837.html The actual Rolling Stone story can be found here: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/119236?RS_show_page=0 I have to say I read it front to back and I think it's a stellar piece of journalism. I'm not disagreeing with the administration -- it's definitely not the outright pasting that some pundits are suggesting, and it's mostly his aids doing the talking, but it is quite critical of certain individuals -- he's probably going to have to be fired. But I also think it's a sad statement about the situation. Isn't this the kind of man we WANTED to handle the situation over there? Yeah he blew it, and yeah it's not a perfect situation on the ground, either. But dammit, it's Afghanistan. It's six different kinds of messy, and we have to expect that. Read the Stone piece, it's quite insightful about the situation on the ground over there. The last few pages are particularly compelling. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedJust to follow up on this, General McChrystal was relieved of duty a short time ago following a morning meeting with the President. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/23/AR2010062300689.html

It's a cool idea but the French program has had a lot of problems. I'm surprised nobody remembers this story from late last year. Started as a public program by the Socialist party, they've since had to get a private company to maintain the bikes, 80% of which were vandalized or stolen. As I understand it, they sold the rights to the repairs as a marketing venture, but it cost the city a major income source in billboard advertising, which was signed over to the repair company. It's actually a pretty good example of ideological concepts in practice, putting to test the notions of socialism and the old capitalistic charge that the public doesn't perceive value in something it doesn't own, but perhaps they can recover over the long run, or perhaps it just needs the right balance of socialism and capitalism combined. But Paris is such a melting pot -- I don't know maybe Denver will have more luck. I can't really imagine it working in New York, Chicago or LA, though. This New York times article from last fall has a pretty good rundown on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/world/europe/31bikes.html If memory serves, 60 Minutes ran a piece on it as well. The Wikipedia article on the Paris program can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V%C3%A9lib%27

I was talking about the crowd in that quote, not the filmers. The crowd was pressing the officer and elevating the situation. Some individuals appear to deliberately brush past him and enter his immediate vicinity in a manner that makes it look like they just want to move by but which seems designed more to instigate a reaction. All of it is unacceptable, and if there were a law against idiotic and unproductive behavior virtually everyone that crowd should have gone to jail that day. It's high time this country did a better job of educating people on how to behave, instead of Hollywood and "community organizers" selling them the benefits of bad behavior for a few beer commercials and a neighborhood stimulus grant. But this has little to do with this subject at hand; just answering your question.

That's the interesting question posed by Joshua Keating at Foreign Policy today. The question refers to the recent arrest of Colorado construction worker Gary Faulkner, who was arrested last week in Pakistan on a weapons charge. Faulkner had apparently been planning to stalk and kill bin Laden. The article goes on to talk about "letters of marque and reprisal" (not issued since 1812), and Ron Paul's recent efforts to revive the concept in order to allow private militias to go hunt him down. The article makes an interesting point in saying that any group that planned such a activity while within the US could be arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder outside the US. What do you all think of Ron Paul's suggestion? I'm not sure what I think on this but I'd probably have to go with "no" (don't allow), because it seems like kind of an invitation to nasty mercenary activities and making the US look even worse overseas. For example, Paul suggests that the act could be used to fight Somali pirates, but I think the current international effort (patrol) makes more sense, and that problem is much more clearly rooted in poverty than the situation with Al Qaeda. But what do you folks think? http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/22/is_it_legal_to_kill_osama_bin_laden

I agree. I also think that the gradual erosion of boundaries to executive power are becoming more clear with each passing administration. The reasons behind that have little to do with partisan politics, and everything to do with getting re-elected and establishing a legacy (or just plain getting something done). It's the road to perdition, and it gets resurfaced with good intentions every 4-8 years. (Say, wasn't that one of the stimulus projects? "The Edward Moore Kennedy Memorial Highway to Hell"?)

The Supreme Court announced a 6-3 vote today upholding the provision in the Patriot Act that allows for the prosecution of individuals who provide material support, including knowledge and other communications, which had been objected-to by human rights and free speech organizations. The dissent consisted of Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Stephens, who retires in a few days. His planned replacement, Stevens, voted with the majority, and his planned replacement, Elena Kagan, actually argued the case for the government (representing the Obama administration, which brought the appeal) late last year. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iyoQvMNadtonx9sFU0beOI7UMaUgD9GFTCAG0 I think it is quite possible to differentiate between free speech and direct support (through speech) for terrorism, and this law is an attempt to draw that distinction (and apparently a valid one, within the constitution). What do you all think?

Is it a computer owned and managed by your employer? I've seen updates fail because of policies imposed by system admins. If not that then it's probably conflicting with a plug-in or other piece of software somewhere.