Pangloss

I believe the article also mentions that he was initially raised in the American southwest, and at some point his parents relocated to what is now Iraq.

He didn't attack you, at least from what I saw in the bit you quoted: That sounds to me like a personal opinion, not ad hominem. I don't care if it's poisoning the well or not; certainly you can challenge him on that, but not with a personal attack. If there are other quotes you'd like to complain about, please report those posts (or the one above if you like) with the little triangle button and we'll get all the mods and admins to take a look at them. Don't just go at the guy because you don't like the way he sneers at liberals. Two wrongs don't make a right. Thanks.

In reference to post #12 above, I wonder why warming would be greater in places where there is the least human civilization? It occurs to me that this is not necessarily a reflection on human influence (i.e. it doesn't mean that man didn't cause it). Is it possible that the energy that causes the warming is created in one place, but then essentially "pools" in another area, causing that area to warm instead? (I'm thinking along the lines of the way energetic particles spread heat more rapidly than placid ones. Or to borrow another metaphor, those great trash circles out in the ocean -- they weren't created there, but their contents obviously come from human beings.)

This is an opinion thread and he is allowed to state his opinion. Having one that's different from yours does not make him a troll. Failing to substantiate his opinion does not make him a troll. Nobody is forcing you to demand that he change his view.

I think you and I are having a slightly different discussion than myself and The Bear's Key, and I may have conflated them unintentionally in my previous post (he's the one claiming that there are far right wing Democrats). You asked me to respond to this specific question: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/16/AR2010021605974.html?hpid=topnews

That's a great chart. Thanks, I will use that on some conservative Obama-bashing forums! Speaking of people not wanting to let facts change their "preferred narrative", do you have one showing employment from 2001 to 2007, when Democrats were constantly pounding the podium about jobs lost, but they were actually recovering? This was a particular point of contention during the 2004 election cycle, if memory serves. Of course, the more intelligent criticisms from the left at that time focused more on the increase in part-time employment and the issue of a "fair wage". Oddly, those issues seem to receive less attention today, and I've been wondering why the right hasn't been at least drilling for oil on the subject of part-time employment and the numbers of jobless 'who just give up'. The right seems to do better than the left at populist rabble-rousing, but not as well at intelligent criticism.

Nicely put. And an interesting post in general. In reading your post I'm reminded of Bernard Goldberg's interesting book Bias, which he wrote after being fired from CBS News. His point, if memory serves, was not that the news is liberal is by design but that it is liberal by effect. In short, the preference of the individuals who report it, whether consciously or unconsciously, sometimes distorts the reporting. That's an interesting angle that I haven't heard before. But I think you let Fox News off too easy. It seems more a pattern of design and intent than coincidence. You don't schedule guests in a face-off situation without pondering their agendas, for example, or how they will make you look. Then you have to promote their appearance, too.

Who are these right-wing Congressional Democrats? What are their names? Personally I don't care how "conservative" or "liberal" a politician is. I don't see one as good and the other as evil. If broad ideologies are more important to you than the issues than, again, I applaud you for having an opinion, and I refer you to the above sources that amply demonstrate that most voters don't see it that way. If that IS important to you, then in answer to your question I refer you to the source I mentioned previously, OnTheIssues.org, which charts politicians on the political map, and has been used as a source on this forum by someone who shares your ideological preference (bascule). I listed two of your so-called conservative Democrats above who's charts actually show them to be liberal or moderate on this objective scale. Also, I didn't say that there's an exact point separating Democrats and Republicans. What I said, in response to your claim that this is significant, is that Republicans are farther to the right than Democrats, and therefore your logic regarding whom Congressional leadership should compromise with breaks down. As far as I'm aware, there are no Democrats in Congress currently who are to the right of Republicans, or even in the general vicinity of the right wing of conservative politics. And, per your request, I've produced a source that supports this. So who are these right-wing Democrats?

Such a filibuster would be irrelevent if Democrats found sufficient compromise within their own party. Again, your point seems to be that even-more-conservative Republicans need to farther to the left than conservative Democracts, and you seem to think that this makes actual sense. I mean okay, if that's what you think, more power to you, but I don't really see why you feel that that should make sense to people. I have no idea what you mean by "patterns". Certainly you're not telling me anything I'm not familiar with -- I've been following Blue Dog Democrats for more than twenty years, and I've posted about them on this forum many times. Yes, the Democrats are a bigger tent than Republicans; this is a political trusim, and it is beside the point. I can understand how you might misconstrue my previous post to mean that I was saying that there were no conservatives in the party prior to the 2008 election, but that's not what I actually said, and a comprehension of my Zell Miller reference would have revealed this to you, as his book explains in great detail how the big tent once existed with the party but has declined in recent years (way it goes, not everyone reads everything). I said that they WANT to be the big tent, meaning that they've faded from that mantle and wanted to recapture it. They got exactly that, but they'd forgotten what it means to have it. I hope I've made this more clear. Mainstream political observation supports my opinion quite clearly. Radical left political observation queues a response of "give 'em hell, Harry Reid". Radical right political observation is outside of our scope. MAINSTREAM political observation is that Democrats are disconnected from political reality at the moment. I would be happy to support that position, and to that end I offer today's will-not-run announcement from Evan Bayh, which follows similar announcements from Chris Dodd, Byron Dorgan, all Democrats, and three dozen members of the House. (source) Why are they resigning? Bayh had a double-digit lead in the polls, so a pending loss in November ain't it. The most oft-stated reason is the increase in political partisanship in Washington. Nor are these men singling out Republicans for their ire, either. Bayh was one of YOUR enemies -- one of the conservative Democrats who wasn't playing ball. He was as tired of the progressive push from his "peers" as he was of Republican blockage. But as that article states, other Dems are dropping out because of polls -- Congressional Democrats are threatened in Arkansas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Delaware and Colorado. Congress is looking at a whopping 71% disapproval rating, and even though Dems are likely to hold the majority come December, they'll be doing it with a new majority leader because the old one's likely to lose his own re-election! This ABC News piece looks at the issue of failing bipartisanship as well: Here's Bayh talking earlier about Democrats not listening to reality, from the same article linked above: Wow. Here's another one, an article quoting former Democratic Governor Douglas Wilder: And yet you feel that the left-most members of the party should somehow dig in their heels and push harder. My question to you is a simple one: With what votes, my friend? With what votes? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBy the way, just want to add a brief follow-up: I've made the mistake of buying into your premise that there are "conservative Democrats". Frankly I don't think that label is accurate. They're centrists is what they are. I'd be surprised if you can pull up a single name of a current Congressional Democrat who falls into the "Right Conservative" section of the political meter at On the Issues, which is often cited as an objective source by bascule. Evan Bayh scores as a "left liberal" on their chart, which can be found here: http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Evan_Bayh.htm And he's the LEADER of your so-called "conservative Democrats", my friend. Even Louisiana's Mary Landerieu, who's often cited as being in that "uncooperative" group of Senate Democrats, is left of the centerline in the Moderate box: http://ontheissues.org/Senate/Mary_Landrieu.htm

That you should not advocate tyranny by a different minority (liberal Democrats). Two wrongs don't make a right.

Exactly -- Democrats thought they had an ideological mandate, and they discovered that they did not, because many of the Democrats who came in represented very conservative districts who were simply tired of Republican representation. Those districts didn't change their minds about abortion, health care, Federal spending, or social programs. They didn't wake up one morning and decide to change the radio station from Rush Limbaugh to Air America, or to switch the TV from Fox News to MSNBC. There is movement in this country on ideological issues, but it's on a case-by-case basis. The fact that some conservative somewhere decides one morning that he's probably going to be fine with gays in the military after all does not mean that he is going to also decide in that same moment that creationism is impossibly illogical, everyone should get a fair wage, jobs are a right not a privilege, a fetus is not a human, and that it's time to trade in the pickup for a Prius. It just doesn't happen that way. There is no filibuster when you have 60 seats. Do you mean filibuster by conservative Democrats? If that's what you mean, if you're just making the point that 1 of the 60 (or looked at another way, 1 out of 100 given that there are 40 who we know aren't cooperating) is holding up the process, then yes, I agree. But that DOES mean they couldn't make compromises. That's exactly what it means. Let's take a look at a typical example, that I backed up with sources with Mokele earlier in another thread -- the abortion situation with health care reform. Conservative Democrats (a number of them, not just one) insisted that the government not pay for them. Liberal Democrats such as Maxine Waters stated that the bill would lose THEIR support if the government DIDN'T pay for them. In other words, by definition, the two sides were unable to reach a compromise. None of which has anything at all to do with Republicans. How could it? Should they vote for a bill that they don't believe in just because you need to get your agenda passed? How could that make any sense in a democracy? In short, Democrats want to be the big tent, but they don't want the responsibility of compromise that being a big tent means. Zell Miller tried to explain this to Democrats all the way back in 2003 with his wonderfully insightful book A National Party No More, and Democrats laughed at him and called him names. Guess who's laughing now? (I highly recommend that book to all political hobbyists, btw. Think what you want about the man, but he knows politics like a pigs knows stink.) Beside the point. You can't pretend that the agenda wasn't too progressive just because Michael Moore wasn't leading the way. The proof that it was too progressive is the fact that none of it was signed into law.

If you don't mind my backing up a bit, what about the argument that points out the number of cases of people who have been found guilty, only to have direct scientific evidence later prove them innocent?

Well certainly your opinion (and that of others here) is no less valuable, but also no more valuable, than my own. But that doesn't tell us anything factual, now does it? The tale is told by what the situation actually was (60 vote majority; no need for Republican votes) and what was actually accomplished (very little; no health care reform topping the list). Now you can continue to blame this on Republicans, who have certainly behaved badly, but that makes no sense because as I've explained here before you can't bring them on board without concessions that you are unwilling to make. Or you can blame it on moderate Democrats who wanted stuff you didn't want to give them either. Or you can recognize the fact that the proposed changes were unacceptable to a country that is, surprisingly and in spite of all efforts to avoid the fact, a democracy. You tried to shove something down their collective throats, and they spit it back up in your face. My advice: Try again. Only this time, listen to what the people are actually telling you, instead of what you wish they were telling you. If you think that Obama was caving to the right and that he needs to pound the podium for aggressive progressive reforms, you're just going to have the exact same failure you had before. If, on the other hand, you recognize that the country is not progressive, that it is a balance of progressive and conservative, and that it wants sensible reform, not social mandate, then you will have some success. It's pretty much that simple. Two different things: Obama's election; Democrats achieving majority. Are they connected? Certainly. Do they indicate a mandate for progressive ideology? Not necessarily, because there are only two parties to choose from. You're certainly welcome to believe that most Americans woke up one day and decided that we suddenly need an open border, casual abortion, a "living wage", free health care for all, and so forth -- the stereotypical progressive agenda. Or you can believe what is more likely (and in my opinion is correct), that the moderate middle that actually represents the majority of this country is bouncing back and forth between two unacceptable parties, which promptly declare an ideological mandate and then fail to achieve it, because they don't understand that they aren't representing the majority view. Take your pick. As I said, your opinion is no less valuable than my own.

I've always wondered about that solitary confinement thing -- it's always seemed to me like more of a blessing than a curse. Who'd want to have to associate with the kind of people you find in jail anyway? But I don't know how isolated they are from other forms of entertainment. I guess if you cut me off from the books and the Wikipedia I would probably go crazy in pretty short order.

I think the key problems there are the number of things people have to keep track of (laws, safety concerns, freedoms, etc) and the inconsistency of a smaller pool of leadership to draw from. But there's a lot to be said for good local leadership, for sure.

Or maybe Obama actually cares about fighting the deficit... I said "they" and I meant "they". - Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p156-7. Yes, most of the book follows closer to traditional progressive policies, but that quote taught me that this man is objective and independent in his thinking. Why he spent 2009 caving to Democratic Congressional leadership, which was erroneously convinced that it had a progressive mandate, I have no idea. I hope for better behavior from both parties in 2010.

Reminder: Due to its location on the board, this is not an opinion thread. This is a science thread. Discussion is limited to that basis. Also, if you are interested in discussing the politics of global warming, please see various threads on the Politics subforum. Thanks.

The not-quite-yet-failed health care reform plan was projected by the CBO to add $800-1,000 billion dollars to the deficit over ten years before hopefully pushing the line the other way (source). This would not be allowed under PAYGO, which is a year-to-year requirement, not a ten-year-maybe-it-will-maybe-it-won't requirement. (And I'm regretting not mentioning this earlier, since it supports my point that they've clearly become aware that they need to behave between now and November.)

iNow, in what way does my previous post fail to document why my claim was not ridiculous? I think you make a valid point, but it doesn't necessarily dispute my own. Could not both of our opinions be true? Bascule said that Obama just signed this on Friday. I acknowledged this and commented an opinion it reflected current trends in tactical thinking in the Democratic Party. Your reply brought up the issue of previous promises by numerous Democrats to re-implement PAYGO, which I do not dispute.

Promises are one thing, action is another. President Obama signed the bill on FRIDAY. Congress passed the legislation last week and the week before last, all following the Scott Brown election. Therefore my comments were appropriate and even if you disagree with them they are undeserving of ridicule. The massive bailouts and stimulus packages of the last couple of years would not have been possible had PAYGO been in place. For that reason, some Democrats were opposed to its return. Even after the sudden realization by Democrats in late January and early February that public perception was not going their way, 15 Democrats still voted against PAYGO and 7 abstained (source). And I've just about had it with the above. You wouldn't tolerate that sort of thing if it were aimed at you, and I've demonstrated why it's unfairly aimed at me here. Knock it off.

I agree with this, and have no idea why you feel you're in disagreement with me. Well said. This is why I personally have a problem with Fox News, and it's disturbing how this point keeps disappearing under attacks that seem based more on an assumption that left-bias is necessary for the public good, and Fox is bad for not having the correct bias. Fox is bad because it chose a bias, instead of having one appear from time to time due to individual reporter error and reporter bias (which sometimes creeps a bit higher to producers and programmers). That's Fox's one and only error. It's a doozy, yes, but it's not about science or politics or the need to convince people to do this or that. It's about what constitutes news and why news is so important to a democracy. Fox undermines the very heart of the fourth estate and what it means. It does the very thing that the right constantly bemoans the left for, and it does it deliberately. It is the very essence of a "two wrongs make a right" argument. All of that having been said, just as other organizations can have bias and still report the news, Fox News is also still capable of being a news organization, exposing wrongdoing, and reporting important stories. The answer to the thread's question cannot be other than "yes", because bias does not make "no" mandatory. If it did we wouldn't have any other news organizations either. (And THAT's why CNN et al are relevant to this discussion.)

Because many Democrats would like to spend very large amounts of money on social programs right now.

Well I personally agree with that, and I would not want to run a social-contractless experiment on a national level the way objectivists and some libertarians would like. But I don't know if that's at the same level of logical clarity as the loss of contract law. Without the social contract you can at least get a group of your friends to go do something when your sister is raped. But without contract law, we're all living in caves. (Or so it seems to me.)

Reinstituting PAYGO was definitely the right thing to do, but I doubt they would have done it if it wasn't for the current polling, the loss of the 60th Senate seat, and election threat this fall.

Oh I agree completely -- the fact that there's a high amount of snowfall in the east this year certainly doesn't contradict global warming, and it even supports it. But the politically correct press cites global warming every sunny afternoon and every time a cigarette starts a brush fire. Daily perception is not a relevant factor in determining global warming. So CNN doesn't get a free pass here. If you want to opine that CNN is acceptable and Fox News is unacceptable because CNN's position is harmless and Fox's is damaging to the agenda of fighting global warming, well that's certainly your opinion and you're entitled to it. I would just say that that kind of opinion is not actually harmless; it can easily cause more damage in the long run due to the randomness of public will. Steering public opinion is a risky business. Ideologues travel those paths at their peril.