Pangloss

Even if she supports Obama's Bush-like anti-terrorism policies?

On ABC News last night a reporter stated that the Mississippi River pumps out three times as much volume as the oil spill, and directly into its path, which is (he said) one reason why it hasn't come ashore yet. I'm not sure what's more impressive about that statistic (if it's true) -- the awesome power of the Mississippi River, or the fact that the spill is all of a third of that figure.

I'm afraid I can't recall where I read this now, but I saw some piece a week or three ago that said that renouncements are at an all time high -- something like 250 people renounced their citizenship last year. Which is kind of amusingly small, but I wouldn't be surprised if some right wing commentators latched on to that "all time high" bit and ignored the actual number.

She's been a somewhat controversial figure since her appearance on the short list. She's an outspoken advocate for gay rights, which some gay advocates and right-wingers have both taken to mean that she's also a lesbian, which she denies. One commentator suggested that some of these people (both gay rights advocates and right-wingers) need to stop assuming that short hair and a pant-suit automatically means "lesbian" (shades of Janet Reno and Janet Napolitano, who've been similarly accused in the past). The right-wing interest is not surprising, but the gay community interest seems counter-productive (though not really inconsistent -- the politics of gay activism often seems contrarian in nature). There's also a thing out there about how some liberals think she's too conservative. Newsweek seems to concur: http://www.newsweek.com/id/237701

I read this a few weeks ago and have been meaning to mention it here. Historian/journalist Burrough is mainly known for his 2003 book "Barbarians at the Gate", about RJR Nabisco, and has recently published a new book called "The Big Rich", about the rise and fall of Texas oil fortunes. Public Enemies was a 2009 publication, and was made into a movie starring Johnny Depp and Christian Bale that seemed to bear almost no resemblance to the book at all. Burrough's thesis is fascinating -- that the FBI as we know it was created by a sequence of events that took place over only 18 months in 1933 and 1934. This era, commonly known today as the "public enemy era", but which at the time was known by a phrase used by the Roosevelt government which resonates even today: "The War on Crime". The FBI prior to that time was not a law enforcement entity. They were mainly lawyers, fresh out of law school, and did not even have permission to carry weapons. Their job was to enforce J. Edgar Hoover's new vision of using science and technology to track down interstate criminals. At that time, the country, wrapped up in the Great Depression, was not used to the idea of an interstate criminal. Organized crime was still in its infancy, and cases like Al Capone had been rare -- federal laws to fight such criminals did not yet exist, and of course the main need for dealing with Capone and his type had seemed to end with the repeal of prohibition. In fact the very idea of a national police force was downright terrifying, raising a specter of fascism and communism that seemed anathema to the American way of life. Isn't that interesting? Seems like we're still having that debate *today*. According to Burrough, what changed people's minds was not a recognition of a general problem that would continue to plague the country as technology and the population grew, but rather a series of media events that galvanized the public. In short, five small bank robbery gangs created the modern FBI: John Dillinger, the Barker gang, Baby-Face Nelson, Pretty-Boy Floyd, and Bonnie and Clyde. What's really interesting is that all of these media events, which have always been portrayed to the public as completely separate, were in fact connected. One of the most fascinating aspects of the book is that he presents the 18-month period in chronological order. It's not unusual, for example, for a car chase involving, say, Bonnie and Clyde to pass right by the hotel where, say, John Dillinger is recuperating from a gun fight. And many of the people in these gangs knew each other and worked together on some criminal actions, such as bank robberies and kidnappings. Burrough's depth is amazing, and apparently augmented by the fact that many of the connections between these gangs have only been recently revealed with the opening of FBI case files in the late 1990s. Many of the stories of these gangs have been portrayed to the public already in film and television, but Burrough focuses on the harsh reality of their actions and the consequences they had on gang members, law enforcement officials, and families. Absolutely fascinating. Historical writing at its very best.

Oh no, that's not the sound of backing off, that's the sound of wait-and-see. And it's a sound emanating from the White House just as loudly as those evil Republicans. It certainly hasn't been written up in the "bullied by conservatives" (rofl) New York Times yet, but I doubt it's escaped any political observer's attention that the spill keeps taking longer and longer to come ashore, and seems weaker and less damaging at every turn. Personally I think if the right-wing pundits are saying that then it's a bit daft at this point -- it could be just good breaks with the weather and tides. But the big names (Obama, GOP leadership, and Democrats behind offshore drilling) are going to wait and see before getting on that bandwagon again.

Do you feel that there are any "overlapping and unnecessary capabilities", Skye? $15 billion does not sound like a lot to me and I think they can probably get that if they work on it. Real savings -- the kind that would actually make a difference in the deficit/debt -- will be much harder. Here's why you won't see significant cuts in Defense spending during the Obama administration, regardless of what Republicans do. (Though I'm sure we'll be told it's their fault, somehow.) Procurement (those big contracts you hear about on TV) only accounts for ~$140 out of $685 billion in the 2010 budget (source). If you add in R&D (about 80) that's still only about a third of the budget. And here's the problem: The low-hanging fruit has already been picked. Every single major program has already been curtailed or heavily modified to suit a tighter budget. For example, we're not building the vaunted (and hideously expensive) Seawolf class submarines, we're building the scaled-back, economical Virginia-class submarines (6 in service, 6 under construction, all under budget and ahead of schedule, and all needed to replacing aging Los Angeles-class boats (leaving far fewer in service)). Similarly, we're not building the vaunted CVX carriers, we're building the scaled-back Ford-class carriers (only one under construction). We're already planning to retire Nimitz-class carriers before they're replaced, scaling back the number of carriers in service (Bush plan). We're barely buying any F-22s -- the number is insufficient to replace the F-15, and nobody knows what that means yet. The only thing we got to stand pat on is the F-35 (JSF), which happened in part because we'll get some of our money back from overseas sales (the Brits are building their first supercarriers, the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales, to carry them). Which brings me to the two reasons you won't see a major cut in Defense during the Obama administration: 1) If you want the big cuts, you have to go after the whopping $437.5 billion (2010 budget) that goes to personnel, operations and maintenance (that's maintenance of the old crap we're no longer building, meaning if you cancel the new stuff that bill just gets bigger). Currently we're something like 8.5 million jobs in arrears. The military employs something like 1.5 million Americans. With the new numbers we've added a bit under 600,000 jobs in the first half of this year. The math here is pretty obvious -- nobody's going to touch military personnel. 2) Logical or not, as long as Al Qaeda and the Taliban are sending people over here to set off bombs, Defense spending will not be seriously curtailed. The political math just doesn't work out. That having been said, there will likely be some savings from mustering out war veterans over the next couple of years, and of course the end of spending in Iraq/Afghanistan at some point. And really as big as that department is I have no doubt that some changes could be made and perhaps even some real savings found that the administration can hang its hat on. It'll need to do that in order to go after social spending anyway, which of course is where the real money is.

Yeah I can't even imagine liberals using scare tactics -- no no, it's only Fox News that uses exaggeration and fear to fight their ideological enemies! UYKQJ4-N7LI

I made it through 1:47. According to this partisan hack whom you've put forth as some kind of objective informer, Fox News "edited out of the constitution" the restrictions on treason. Just chopped 'em right out of there, and now they no longer exist. Terrifying! Clearly we all need to register to vote Democrat immediately. Why aren't you accusing that commentator of doing exactly the same thing that Fox News is doing? Two wrongs don't make a right. And why aren't you applying THIS policy:

Microsoft is not really that much larger than Apple, btw. Operating revenue of ~$58b vs ~43, and 93k employees vs 34k. Nothing like, say, Wal-Mart (~$400b, >2 mil employees), which is the regular subject of labor and environmental probes.

Obviously from their perspective Beck's "pros" still outweigh his "cons". Perhaps whatever attention you're referring to was less than the perceived increase in advertising revenue, viewers, etc.

Quite right. I disagree. Outlets don't fire their pundits because they disagree with their message, they fire them because their message causes unwanted attention for the outlet. It's all fine and dandy when they're bringing in more listeners, but when they make an outrageous claim that causes demonstrators to appear outside the station and advertisers to call in a panic, support evaporates rapidly. Certainly the 9.12 and tea party stuff suits Fox News Channel's ideological bias. CNN and MSNBC commentators suit their ideological bias as well. Commentators show up at rallies and organize their activities, and those activities frequently suit the outlets that employ them. There's nothing ground-breaking about this. It's not a revelation. What's not evidenced here is that any of these outlets actually participate in the organization of such demonstrations. They prefer to keep a professional distance so that they can't be accused of creating the news, and they're not liable if something goes wrong. And it isn't necessary -- the pundits do just fine without their help.

Uh, I wasn't being sarcastic, I was being straight-up. It doesn't sound like he's familiar with that concept. It wasn't meant as an attack. It is understood? By who? By you' date=' for one, or you'd have long ago leveled the same charge at CNN and MSNBC. Or have you forgotten about all your angst regarding Lou Dobbs? No, I'm not:

Sounds kinda chaotic. Not that we're ones to talk, I suppose. Would you characterize this election as fairly normal, or more abnormal?

Any thoughts on the election results? The headlines seem to indicate that the conservatives won the largest number of seats but not enough for a majority. I'm kinda curious exactly what that means. Does that mean they cannot "form a government"? (Not sure exactly what that term means, either.)

I never once said that people shouldn't challenge other people's opinions. Also, you stated your opinion as fact, and even expressed outrage when people didn't agree that it was a fact. That's a whole different ballgame. And not once during that response have I used ad-hominem in any way, though you have in response, and regularly do so, to me.

I've indicated several means by which this probable cause could be found without profiling. They revolved around a citizen notifying a law enforcement official that they've become aware of such a person, and the means by which they became aware. Allow me to repeat one of them. All employers in this country -- every single American who owns a business -- is required by federal law to file a W-2 form for tax withholding. That application requires two forms of valid identification (yes, every single illegal immigrant who finds a job in this country is working for an employer who has violated this law). So one example I gave is an employer who asks for this ID and is does not get it from the prospective employee. That's probable cause right there. She calls 911 and reports the name of the person and their address, and local police go there and enforce the new law. QED. And not possible under current law (local police don't enforce federal tax laws). Nor does it even have to be all that complicated. I'm sitting in a bar between a police officer on my left and an illegal immigrant on my right. The guy on my right tells me he's an illegal immigrant. I nudge the cop on my left and tell him what he just told me. The cop enforces the law. A woman gets pissed at her abusive ex-boyfriend and turns him in. Police enforce the law.

It sounds like you may be unfamiliar with the concept of paid political commentary, which is practiced today by most major news outlets. It is understood that the commentator does not speak for the outlet. Liberal Paul Krugman does not speak for the New York Times any more than conservative David Brooks does. Only enough to agree with you 100% about its bias toward the right. Only enough to notice that it is like other outlets in that regard. Only enough to notice that it has political commentators who like to get people riled up over some ideological position, just like most major news outlets. Can you give an example of a paid advertisement for the 9.12 Project that was shown on the Fox News Channel? Can you give an example of a promotional piece aired on Fox News Channel for the 9.12 Project that did not appear during Glenn Beck's program? You've indicated several news stories covering events, but those events were covered by other outlets. No, I'm challenging your factual statement that there is one. I will say this -- is it self-serving for them to host a guy who creates an event, and then cover that as news? Sure it is, and they aren't so stupid that they don't know what's going on. That puts them in the same danger zone as any other outlet that hosts political commentary that gets out of hand. But of course that's not what you're claiming. You're claiming it's all planned and deliberate. That's fine, I believe you. If they have the same logo on their site and you saw it there at one time, so that's good enough for me. I agree, this suggests that Fox News Channel did NOT want to be associated with them. Or it may suggest some conspiracy to you. You're welcome to have any opinion you want.

No, the new law does not require them to use racial profiling. The required part is that once they have evidence of illegality, they have to act on it. I've indicated several means here by which they can come upon such information without racially profiling. The governor stated that racial profiling is disallowed. No, I'm saying that local law enforcement is in better communication with the local community and may now be better enabled to take act on information than allegedly-overburdened federal authorities operating in the state.

Trying to figure out a decent way to code a control concept that my students have been working on for an FPS shooter for the iPhone. They want to try something different from the console-like two-button approach (left button for move, right button for aim) that's rapidly becoming the defacto standard, but which everyone hates because it requires an inconsistent, poorly-sampled thumb-drag that also frequently blocks the player's view. They've got a pretty good concept, but they've run into a couple of snags so I'm perusing various games and tutorials looking for ideas.

Or maybe I'm smart enough to recognize when a narrowly-defined question is being used to over-generalize an issue and frame a discussion. But okay, so you agree then that there are multiple ways in which law enforcement can become aware of illegal immigrants. Then I suppose you agree that if they are not allowed to do racial profiling and as long as they're not actually doing profiling by some sneaky, covert maneuver, then this would be an acceptable law, yes?

Unsupported allegation. You haven't indicated any connection between Glenn Beck's opinions and the reporting of Fox News Channel. Furthermore, the image that precedes that video indicates that it's part of his daily television broadcast, which is hosted by Fox News, not part of their regular news broadcast. This is no different from CNN broadcasting John King (at 7), Campbell Brown (at 8), or Anderson Cooper (following Larry King at 10). (You want news during that time, you're stuck with Headline News.) Is that it?

Such as the ones I listed.

Let's review this thread and see if we can determine why 27 of you found the original poster's argument so compelling that you just had to vote in agreement. This remains an unsupported allegation. The 912 project is not a Fox News thing, it's a Glenn Beck thing. All outlets have editorial commentators who do not officially represent the opinion of their employers. FNC is behaving no differently from CNN or MSNBC in this area. Many commentators from various networks and even elected officials participated in "Impeach Bush" rallies. ------------------------- Unsupported allegation. ------------------------- Bill O'Reilly is not a news reporter. His program represents his personal opinion. ------------------------ Unsupported allegation. ------------------------ Unsupported allegation. ------------------------ Unsupported allegation. -------------------------- No such site exists. There is a "the912project.com" that appears to be their official site. No Fox logo appears on that page. The Copyright on that page does not belong to News Corp. This allegation was made in post #61 and repeated in #77 even more starkly: I wonder if you got duped by some left-winger who wanted to make FNC look more devious than it is. ---------------------------- That's because your allegations are unsupported, and your argument is based on ridicule. But apparently it worked -- for 27 members of this forum. Congratulations?