Pangloss

Thanks; I knew I had to say something about that because I really did stick my opinion out there in the wrong direction earlier. I realize it's not the end of the world or anything, and I don't think Republicans should blow things out of proportion now any more than environmentalists might have done earlier, but having just gotten back from the Gulf coast I've seen first hand how dependent on the ocean we all are, and it's not going to be pretty. I completely agree with those who say that we need to take every step to ensure that this doesn't happen again.

The House is working on a new Campaign Finance Reform law that has been in the works for some time, but leadership has had a tough time getting it passed. Well apparently a deal was reached today, by way of giving some interesting exceptions to the rule. The Humane Society and the AARP are pretty understandable, ideologically speaking. But the National Rifle Association? Seriously? Wow. Something tells me that won't play at MoveOn.org. Especially since MoveOn.org ISN'T exempt from the new rules. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/15/nra-remains-the-king-on-t_n_612981.html?igoogle=1

I reject your appeal to ridicule and disagree that this is a case of not defending the rights of others, because we already teach people their rights; it's not my fault if they ignore their education. You can also stop putting words in my mouth; nobody's defending "how good cops are" and I haven't denied that there is abuse.

Cute red card. Our infraction system also uses little yellow and red card icons. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedUSA vs. England, immortalized in Legos! RAhqWV2mXVs

Aren't those numbers kinda trivial compared with the current situation?

No, what I'm saying is that it's not the place of bystanders, who almost by definition cannot have the full facts, to openly challenge law enforcement officials at the scene of an incident. And that for ostensibly intelligent people to go around telling Joe Sixpack that cooperating with police is a Bad Thing, even if what he really means is in the calm, after-the-fact environment of a criminal investigation rather than the heated moment of an incident, is problematic, because Joe Sixpack cannot make the subtle distinction you're asking him to make. (See crowd reactions in video for evidence of this in action.) In short, the police aren't the enemy. They're actually doing something we WANT them to do. If we need to fine-tune our understanding of how they do it, great, but frankly I don't care that Joe Sixpack doesn't fully understand his rights, because (a) it's not my fault that he hasn't taken the time to learn them, and (b) if he's guilty then the fact that he doesn't know them works in my favor. If he's innocent he can hire a lawyer, and if THAT's a problem then the system can work on THAT problem and not blame police for the shortcomings of the legal profession. That's not the path to anarchy, it's just plain common sense. I agree with that, and I have no problem with general education opportunities. Well it's a free country, but this looks like a waste of time to me. I don't really stand to gain by Joe's increased knowledge of police procedure.

The problem is that they appear to have a serious history of accidents due to carelessness. I don't know at this point how much of that is valid and how much of it is being blown out of proportion by the media, but if the observation is legitimate then it would seem to support the idea that the overall criticism is not just an example of hindsight bias. One statistic commonly bandied about a few weeks ago was that BP had 80-something government infractions, and that the number was at least ten times the number levied against any other oil company (Exxon-Mobil had 1, if memory serves). I don't have a source on this so take it with a grain of salt, but this is the kind of thing I'd be looking at in seeking an answer to the hindsight bias question.

Here's a great article and video illustrating the vast stupidity of arguing with police on the scene. This cop is trying to issue a ticket for jaywalking when half the neighborhood surrounds him and starts to harass him, and two women directly confront him, starting a fight that ends up with punches thrown and people under arrest. http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/06/seattle_police_officer_caught.php I can understand non-cooperation when you may be a suspect, but I think that the kind of anti-police attitude sponsored up and down this thread leads to THIS kind of abusive, confrontational, violent form of "non-cooperation". When you deliberately go out of your way to tell people not to trust police, when you don't support law enforcement, when you don't recognize the basic, obvious common value of what the police are there for, this is the result. The average Joe Sixpack simply can't split the hair you folks are asking him to split.

I don't. I accept that we're losing some number of potentially valuable members in exchange for avoiding a cacophony of unacceptable noise that would cost us far more members over the long haul. I understand that you don't like it, but I have to temper my sympathy for your position with the knowledge that you're probably looking for more populist conservative types here to drown out the progressives, and I'm not okay with that any more than I'm okay with people browbeating the rare conservative voice at SFN. And I'm thinking that you're also probably feeling a bit of siege mentality that comes with being a conservative in scientific discussions in these too-many-years-since-Proxmire days. But I respect your opinion on it, I appreciate the feedback, and my in-box is always open. I should also point out that the restrictions are reviewed and discussed on a regular basis by the leadership team and have been changed a number of times. It's not set in stone, and we have looked at other approaches and will continue to do so. I don't know what this refers to, but I was on vacation last week -- did I miss something? Well I think we HAVE had success in this area. Go see for yourself -- take a look at the typical Politics poster. It says right at the bottom of their post how long they've been a member of the forum and how many posts they've made. See if you don't agree that we've established a very regular, consistent political discussion community. I think we have.

Alvin Greene is the Democratic candidate for Senate for the state of South Carolina, running for election this fall against incumbent Republican Senator Jim DeMint. What's interesting is how Greene got to be the Democratic candidate for Senate. Apparently the unemployed former Army supply specialist, who lives in a run-down home along a rural highway, simply walked into a State office one day last spring and paid the $10,440 candidacy fee and walked out again. He never campaigned, never met any officials with the Democratic Party, didn't go to the state convention, never did an interview, and until last week apparently never even wore a tie. State Democrats are so outraged by the situation that they've asked him to step down, suggesting that he was a "Republican Plant" (see NY Times article below), or that voting machines were tampered with. State Republicans can barely stop laughing long enough to aim barbs through the press. I think it's hilarious. I don't know if it's an indictment of the system or just a great example of little-guy-done-good, but at the very least it seems to be making a statement about good-old-boy political networks and how they react when challenged. However, it does seem to raise questions about suitability in candidates, not to mention underscoring the importance of voter turnout in "lesser" elections. Only ~170,000 votes were cast in this state-wide election (the state has a population of almost 4.6 million). http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12greene.html?scp=1&sq=alvin%20greene&st=cse

We want them to move on. Growth is important, but we are deliberately avoiding the kind of "public" political debate you mentioned in your post #13. Becoming the next Democratic Underground or Free Republic is at the very top of my list of priorities for "things to avoid". Those forums became what they are (ideological group masturbation) because partisan posters were allowed to create dominant factions and steer "public" discussions there, outside of the control (or with the consent) of administration. I want to grow the Politics subforum, but only in a manner that's managed with the specific goal of being egalitarian and non-partisan. I agree with you that it's not so much that we're trying to miss out on the ones who misunderstand or don't read the rules so much, it's more an effort to avoid/limit hit-and-run posting, which has a particularly deleterious effect on political discussions. Another factor that I've always considered vital to the Politics board is the sense of community. The vast majority of the posts in that subforum come from regular members that have been here for years. They all know each other pretty well, which means both broader understanding and deeper discussion. And we're wide open on suggestions as to how we can make the board more welcoming towards intelligent, long-term participation.

And determined in a very scientific manner -- through direct experimentation!

Personal tit-for-tats aside, jackson33 appears to me to be on the right track, and the video you posted in #14 (if that's from today's show) supports what he's saying. Donna Brazile suggested that the $6.9 billion earned by BP in the first quarter of 2010 be set aside. Former Labor secretary Robert Reich then goes a step further, suggesting that the company be placed in receivership. Going back to the other subject discussed above, host Jake Tapper, ostensibly objective, rephrases Reich's statement to mean "government take-over", and proceeds to question the panel on that basis, without objection from Reich. These are good questions and I think it will be interesting to see how Democrats tiptoe down this very narrow passageway.

Well here's a clear question for you: Do you feel that BP's assets should be seized?

That's how I've always felt about hurricane response ratings, and I suppose the same reasoning applies here. There are legitimate complaints, but given the general mood in the country and its attitude about government in general, it seems clear that during a crisis a poll is always going to show low ratings for whomever is in charge of the response. Where I think the question becomes interesting politically is in how it applies to the question of leverage. Katrina was leveraged by mainstream Democrats in their ongoing anti-Bush efforts -- not just the far left, and not just Louisianans like Donna Brazille and James Carville (the latter of whom has been notably critical of President Obama with regard to the oil spill). These same Democrats, now in control of the country, are now on the receiving end of one of the most significant "turnabout is fair play" moments in recent political history. But in the end the main question is how the public will see it in five months. But unlike Katrina, five months from now the situation in the Gulf of Mexico is likely to be the same or worse than it is now. This does not bode well for the party in power. On the plus side, media attention will shift and tend to focus public ire more on corporate malfeasance than on regulatory shortcomings, so the damage may not, in the end, be insurmountable. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIt gets worse, by the way, when you consider the recent allegations, many coming from sources normally friendly to Democrats, that the administration has been playing politics with the disaster, downplaying its response, focusing on blaming BP, and focusing on conservative spill/leakage estimates while their own people were saying that the spill was far worse than they wanted the public to believe. The new issue of Rolling Stone has a hard-hitting investigating piece that just came out on Tuesday with some rather startling accusations, including evidence that the administration deliberately hid worst-case leakage estimates that were thought to be accurate by bother industry experts and independent scientists just days after the crisis. This picture was taken in an official event response room on April 22nd. Note the green writing towards the bottom of the white board, indicating NOAA's worst-case scenario estimate: At that time both the administration and BP was talking about 12,000-25,000 barrels/day being the worst-case scenario -- the official estimates were around 1,000 barrels/day (see page 6, halfway down page), with heavy emphasis being placed on this being the most likely. Apparently we need a new definition for the term "worst case scenario". The full article is an interesting read: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/17390/111965?RS_show_page=0 And note this quote below. Again, this is Rolling Stone Magazine, the very epitome of liberal "hipster" progressivism. If Obama can't even get unclouded devotion from an outfit like Rolling Stone, who CAN he get it from? "The third Bush term"??? OUCH! The article also looks at the White House response over the timeline of the post-event period: You read it right: The estimate was raised, and the President went on vacation. The article goes on to talk about scientific reaction to the White House playing ball with BP: This from an administration that's supposedly friendly towards science. Democrat or Republican doesn't matter at this point. This doesn't play in Peoria.

Apparently the general public thinks that the federal government is handling the Texas oil spill in a manner that's even worse than its response to Hurricane Katrina. This is politically significant since Katrina is often named as a key factor in the downfall in George W. Bush's poll numbers in his second term. President Obama is up for re-election in 2012, but his party faces a tough mid-term election in less than five months. The article includes a link to a PDF showing charts and questionnaire sample. http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Media/poll-bp-oil-spill-rated-worse-katrina-criminal-charges/story?id=10846473

Abeefaria's comments were really focused more on the concept of asset seizure, not corporate identification or blame-finding. He wants to know if anybody here supports seizure, and I think that's a valid question. As long as we're leaping to conclusions, iNow, why don't you assure us that you're not stealthily supporting an effort to nationalize the oil industry? Or can we just stick with what folks are actually saying?

This is the image referred to earlier in the thread regarding Reuters:

That's interesting, I'd heard a bit about the stock angle but I didn't realize it was tied to pensions. Makes sense, though. I don't know how much of this you can aim at privatization, since there were regulations in place that were supposed to stop everything that went wrong. Maybe the anger should be aimed at those who were supposed to enforce the rules and the general system that's failed to enforce them. At least one high-level bureaucratic manager has already lost her job over this, but there may be more repercussions to come.

First the colonies, now that goal. Is there anything that won't slip through your fingers, England?

Makes sense. The story kinda struck me as inflammatory, and came right on the eve of the opening of World Cup Soccer.

I'm afraid I just have one indirect link on this because it was a video item on local news that I caught just before we left our vacation spot, and I'm afraid to scour the news at the moment because I've tivo'd the US-UK soccer game and I don't want to spoil it! (Have at thee, former colonial oppressors!!!!!) This one is about Obama saying "no hard feelings" to the British and I'm kinda afraid to read it because I see soccer pics on the page. (lol) But the news item I heard was that it's become a bit of a row in the UK -- is that right? Something about some in Britain being upset that Obama has been so critical of BP? I was kinda surprised at that because I didn't get the impression that Obama was criticizing Britain, per se, but just this specific multinational conglomerate. I've never gotten an anti-UK vibe from any aspect of the story, as reported locally over the last couple of months. Could this be a misperception on the part of British people that Americans are upset with them over this? http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gWex3tV4QpJTdP2ea1byEXbTTQrQD9G9TKM81

You mean like Jon Stewart? He ripped into the President on Tuesday for being behind the issue, making exactly the same point I did, albeit more humorously. http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-june-1-2010-arthur-brooks (From 5:30 to 8:15.) (And now I really gotta run!)

Exactly -- the aftermath is going to be expensive, but on the grand scale of things it's unlikely that it would be expensive in the way that wars or bailouts are expensive. Might as well do it right and be pro-active about it, rather than making sure all the Ts are crossed and the Is dotted. Sure, but we're just talking about political perceptions, not changing the facts on the ground. As you point out, the opposition party will always find something to attack, but he's clearly been "behind" this issue, and it's the response from liberals and his subsequent increase in activity that indicate this. But certainly his trip today will help. Speaking of which, I'm off on my own trip to the Gulf Coast; see you guys in a week!