Pangloss

I can't remember.

"How dare you, Republicans, for accusing me of having a bad memory because I lost my leg in Vietnam, when everyone knows that losing a limb causes long-term memory loss!!!!"

I think that's a great example of what happens when we bounce from one party's leadership to another for reasons that are mainly about shifting moderates and incumbent rejection, but the party that comes into leadership views it as an ideological mandate and an opportunity to start pushing through social reforms.

"So" it's a statement about the Obama administration's position on the issue, and the Obama administration went on to nominate that candidate five months later. Sure there are other factors involved, of course there are. But for ideologues who want candidates with the correct ideological list this is both a setback and an ironic twist.

Geothermal plants emit CO, but certainly far less than the equivalent amount of fossil fuel power. They're depletable, localized, and (as I understand it) not usable for the majority of the US. But certainly we can build more of them. ----------- Here's a suggestion: Step 1) Calculate the number of nuclear plants needed to power 150 million electric vehicles driving an average of 40 miles per day and all the coal-generated electrical capacity currently in use in the country, and some room for growth. Step 2) Calculate the cost of that number, as well as the amount of waste required for all those plants and how much it would cost to store it. Nod intelligently and pretend like we all care about the budget. Step 3) Begin putting that plan into action, on the theory that if we can't have clean energy at least we can have cleaner energy. Step 4) Now begin building all the solar, wind, geothermal you possibly can, concurrently with the above plan. Every megawatt of that "clean" stuff that goes in takes the place of a megawatt of nuclear that no longer has to be built. Voila, the Pangloss Energy Plan. It'll actually work, people will actually support it, and the cost doesn't even matter if you simply view it as an investment in the future. Done.

Arlen Specter down in flames, and Dr. Rand Paul nominated in Kentucky. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/us/politics/19elect.html Yeah the tea party groups are pretty happy, but I think this is really more about anti-incumbency. People are pretty fed up with politicians. What do you all think?

I didn't say it was perfect. Nuclear is as clean as it gets and still replace oil. So do you want clean or do you want to replace oil? It may be the devil's own choice, but look at the advantages. Build a bunch of nuclear plants and get all the cars on the grid, and in one fell swoop you come pretty darn close to solving air pollution, global warming, and the oil importation problem, and even bump the economy in the process. And all it costs you is a great big underground nuclear bunker that nobody can touch for a few centuries. Seems like a pretty good price to me. Sure that's a bit exaggerated, but so what? We're talking wild theories here anyway, might as well toss another one out there. But in the end that's pretty much the full set of options right there, whether you see it as Hobson's Choice or not. Everything else is just hand-wringing and finger-pointing.

Well I agree. Of course, we're already doing that with regard to wind, which has never seen such boom times, already rapidly climbing in the total output department. We can give solar the same boost. But of course ultimately they can't provide the kind of energy we need to replace oil. So let's get that nuclear ball rolling.

Well I appreciate you acknowledging my point, but I'm not sure that's all that much better. Part of Cooper's danger is his charm and his appeal to legitimacy. His viewers think he knows what he's talking about because of his 'experience' challenging the government over Katrina (as if). That matters to his audience in much the same way (and with much the same logic) that Beck's viewers need to be assured that aliens aren't about to abduct them. My point is just that Beck doesn't operate in a vacuum. I think he's a particularly large fly on a very wide and deep pile of manure.

It's like Glenn Beck in the sense that he's exaggerating for effect, and not just reporting the news. Let me ask it this way: If the only difference between Anderson Cooper and Glenn Beck is degree, then haven't we said something really significant about the state of modern reporting? And isn't that the real problem here? Either we stand and act on the facts, or we don't. We can't pretend that we're acting on the facts when what we're really acting on is drama and human emotion, because if we do that then we run the risk of making the wrong decision for the wrong reason. Don't we all share some of the responsibility for the rise of religious conservatives?

Fair enough, I can do that. That's one way of looking at it. Other opinions exist. I disagree with the idea of feeding children conservative-biased information to balance liberal-biased information. It's a very flawed argument for a couple of reasons, but mainly because even if it's true (which is a case you haven't made), two wrongs don't make a right. And in this case it's a particularly heinous kind of wrong, because it won't address the last problem you raised -- weakening reasoning skills -- to give them MORE information that you already know to be false. For some extremists, perhaps. You haven't made the case that all liberals are like that. Not "because they say so" -- there's a perfectly reasonable opinion driving that perspective. It's one I happen to not agree with, but they're not being dictatorial (they haven't the basis). They're saying that they feel it's necessary to balance one bad act with another. Kinda like what you were proposing to balance their biased input. It won't work for them for the same reason it won't work for you -- two wrongs don't make a right, they just make more wrong.

Two posts have been temporarily removed pending moderator review. Ridicule is not acceptable discourse on this forum. The proper response is reason and level-headed discussion, and/or the Reported Post feature. Thanks.

Right, and the piece I mentioned on the ABC News piece last night had the same guy says that they're probably only "filament thing" and expressed surprise that they're being taken out of context by demagogues like Anderson Cooper. This story I found does a pretty good job filling in some of the blanks here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-noaa-skeptical-of-oil-plume-reports.html NOAA has expressed skepticism over the plume reports, calling them premature and inconclusive: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/05/gulf-oil-spill-noaa-skeptical-of-oil-plume-reports.html

Bascule asked recently why I haven't posted more examples of liberal commentators doing what Glenn Beck does. The answer isn't because they aren't doing it, it's because I'm not obsessed with finding such examples. But I did happen to catch a few minutes of AC360 tonight while puttering around the house, and I was rather shocked at what I saw. Anderson Cooper 360 is touted as "CNN's premiere nightly news program", not commentary! (you can see this on the page immediately below the video linked below) (Does Fox News do this too, now -- calling their commentary/entertainment programs "news"? Yeesh!) I found a video on the CNN web site that contained most of the piece I saw on the screen: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/podcasts/ac360/site/2010/05/18/cooper.podcast.monday.cnn The piece on the oil spill runs from the beginning to about 10.5 minutes, after which it's followed with one of those amusing stories they usually do on local news where they ask children to look at a sheet of paper depicting black and white children and ask them to point out which ones are the stupid or bad ones, and which ones are the smart or good ones, and of course the kids, presented with an obvious non-sequitur, seem to prefer to point to the black ones (especially when, as Cooper admits late in the piece, they're prepped in advance that they'll be asked for an opinion about race). But let's get to the really fun stuff. The main piece was on the oil spill, and it was a doozy. Here's a few bullets of what Cooper does in this piece that I just sort of jotted down shorthand while watching the video: - Accusing BP of not wanting to know how bad the spill is (no evidence) - "BP is spinning a story" (sarcasm) - BP executives "trumpeting" the story - Furthers unsubstantiated stories of "huge plumes under the surface" (ABC has interviewed the scientist who found those plumes who says that they may be extremely insubstantial) - Reports that they're now capturing 1000 barrels per day, then says "the truth is they have no idea" (accurate), then goes on to report that "leading experts" analyzed the video and say that there could be up to 70,000 bpd coming out. Again, accurate, but that's not a factual figure, it's simply a different estimate, and not a scientific measurement -- there is no way to gauge the accuracy of those estimates either, and they have just as much reason to overestimate as BP has to underestimate. - Focused on BP statement that they were not going to make additional efforts to calculate the flow right now because it's not relevant to the response effort. This is perfectly reasonable, and Cooper uses an obvious straw man to ridicule this statement and accuse them of not wanting to know the truth, which is not logical. He goes on to draw a false analogy about needing to know how bad a fire is to fight it (not if the fire is clearly spewing out of three small point sources, bud). - "You're telling us you can't solve a problem and investigate it at the same time?" (outrageously inflationary straw man) - "This is like Katrina when politicians said that now is not the time to point fingers." Totally false analogy. - Story peppered demagoguery and inciting catch-phrases: - "What they're not telling you" - "What they don't want you to see these pictures" (a bit later @ 05:40) - "What they don't want you to know" - Makes hay of the fact that Transcocean got an award for safety. 60 Minutes reported that the Deepwater Horizon went seven years without an accident -- almost unheard-of in the industry. Whatever came later, didn't they earn that award? The 60 Minutes story seemed to put the blame more on BP than Transocean anyway, and personally I don't care which it was but I'm pretty damned sure Anderson Cooper can't tell me what the facts are. - Douglas Brinkley, presidential historian (wtf?) from Rice University came on as guest and ripped right into BP, accusing them of holding a publicity stunt, complimenting the host for doing the same, STATING FACTUALLY that 95% of the oil is still gushing in to the gulf - BP has "Taken a snide attitude" - "It truly has come to the point where BP has to be held accountable" - This "board of bumblers" which "has done nothing to educate the public" - "people are getting angry" - "arrogance" (Cooper) - "absurd", "Catch-22", "Joseph Heller" (Brinkley) - "Somebody has got to do something to reign in BP" - No balancing guest, as is commonly done on Fox News Channel commentary programs (how about the scientist who says those plumes are wafer thin, or a scientist who says none of this stuff may ever come ashore? How about someone to point out that not one single underwater fishing or farming area has been hit by contamination yet?) Glenn Beck hardly operates in a vacuum, that's for sure. Wow. But even worse, this piece positively SCREAMS ANTI-SCIENCE. So where is the outrage from the vaunted left that touts itself as standing on evidence and reason?

Yes, her client, who just five months later appointed her to the same Supreme Court. Hmm, I wonder if her opinion accurately reflects their point of view on the subject she was arguing for them? I'm not sure what's funnier, the fact that the Obama administration has let down progressives on such a core belief, or the fact that the administration's official representative of that opinion is the youngest Supreme Court nominee in a quarter century and is likely to sit on that bench for the next couple of generations. Either way the political irony is absolutely delicious.

Interesting pair of quotes. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI think this thread is about due for suicide watch, if the best I can get here is "cry cry" and "ill informed idiot". Wrap up your arguments and prepare for a thread lock, gentlemen.

Bwahaha! Um, iNow, her "client" was the Obama Administration! (rofl) Ladies and gentlemen, Elena Kagan: Staunch defender of the progressive movement! But hey, any time there's a conversation about well-poisoning, iNow, I know you can be found nearby. And thanks for so-casually dismissing one of the main liberal objections to John Roberts! (grin) ---------- That's fine, did I misinterpret this? You mean give them therapy under lock and key, then, as in your earlier point of institutionalizing them? Doesn't matter to me where you lock them up. If the cost is about the same, or if the cost is higher but it leads to better science, I'm fine with that. But I think we're on the same page regarding double jeopardy, at least as a concern.

If they're in jail it doesn't matter if they're recidivist or not. I can't read that web site.

I'm not sure, but supposedly 77 of the 150-ish cases are here in Florida. Maybe I can find out something about those cases. In answer to the other questions, I can't really imagine what the "extreme" would be either. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedThe New York Times has some details on the Florida case that was heard by the Supreme Court. So it's not as if they just locked up a first-time offender for life here. He was a repeat offender who participated in a particularly heinous type of violent crime -- home invasion (meaning the victims were in the house). I still agree with the decision, but bear in mind here that what the Supreme Court is saying is that repeat juvenile offenders can't be sentenced to life without parole either. USA Today had an interesting bit of insight on this, comparing Justice Kennedy's questions during the presentation with today's decision: Interesting question! Apparently one so interesting that he felt compelled to answer it himself in today's ruling:

What therapy would you give them that has proven effective in greatly reducing recidivism rates? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, apparently the government's case here was presented by... Elena Kagan. Still think she's the best nominee for the job? (grin)

I think that's too easy. This is no half-baked breakout session from a tea party convention. They spent half a year on this and came to a 7-2 decision that clearly crossed normal ideological lines. I need to understand this before I can condemn it. Just because they ruled this way doesn't mean that they're in favor of never letting any sex offenders go.

What if the law were narrowly defined to include only cases where the predator were over the age of 30 and the victim under the age of 13? I have grave concerns about re-imprisonment without a well-defined process and extremely objective evidence (as opposed to the highly opinionated judgment that seems to account for much of modern psychiatry), but one thing that I think sometimes happens in these discussions is that people throw out the issue because of the possibility of mature 15-year-olds posing as adults, etc. But surely a law can be defined to be exactly what we want it to be (and NOT want it to be), if the desire is there. This comes up a lot in video game censorship discussion as well. You can't dismiss that issue as a simple case of overprotective parents, because just as there are mature 15-year-olds playing games there are also much younger children who may not be ready for them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20005155-504564.html This was a 7-2 decision that, oddly enough, was opposed by conservative hero Antonin Scalia, joined by Clarence Thomas, who (together in dissent) said that this power should be left to the states. Liberal champion Stephen Breyer made this interesting statement in the majority opinion: Interestingly, some of the statements in the majority opinion are being used to suggest some rationales for future decisions regarding the health care reform legislation passed earlier this year. Another (longer) article here: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-05-17/sex-offender-commitment-law-upheld-by-u-s-high-court-update2-.html I've been on the liberal side of this issue, generally opposed to ongoing punishments for sex offenders, and I think that in most cases the science is inadequate to determine whether someone is a "future threat to society". Who can predict the future? I understand the sentiment but it seems inconsistent with the constitution to me. What do you all think?

Calling them 'cruel and unusual punishment'. They have to be given some hope of future release *if* they didn't kill their victims. http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-court-offenders-20100518,0,5369429.story I have mixed feelings about this sort of thing, but I think it's probably the right call. And I think it leaves room for appropriate decision-making in extreme situations while generally doing the right thing. What do you all think?

I saw the report as well. I thought it was impressively technical even for 60 Minutes.