Pangloss

Don't you have better things to do than to put words in people's mouths? Well if that's how you feel, more power to you. But as I said before, these are your opinions, they're not statements of fact. You're certainly entitled to feel that way. I disagree, and so did Dr. King. However, you certainly will find no shortage of people in this world who share your opinion on this. It's a sweet setup for you -- judge the oppositions argument to be illogical and without merit, then attack them for making an argument that is illogical and without merit. Sure beats actually convincing them, right? I disagree. I think their petty rationalizations are actually the most important thing, and the very heart and soul of politics in a democracy. Effects are actually what don't matter much. 130 people died in attacks on gays last year? Yay. 20-something-thousand died on highways. Reality bites, huh? No, in my opinion what matters is the effort and the general direction. Very little can be solved in my lifetime, so why stress over some temporary injustice? My two bits anyway. As I said, you're welcome to disagree.

Nobody's dying because of don't-ask-don't-tell. I agree with you that change doesn't come without pressure. But surely you would agree that backlash is a relevant factor in politics. Do you want to fight about it, or do you want to effect change? Sometimes I thin you have to pick between the two. Not always, but sometimes. If I understand you correctly you're suggesting that had we ended slavery in 1776 (instead of 1863) then we might have stopped segregation sooner than the 1960s (i.e. a chain reaction pushing progress forward in the timeline). Please correct me if I'm reading you wrong. I don't disagree with your logic, I simply opine that it could not have happened that way under any circumstances short of physical force, which would have had other ramifications. I don't think the course of history was the optimal one, but I don't think that wanting to end suffering guarantees the optimal path either. I think a more realistic approach is better. The difference between Dr. King and Malcom X wasn't their methods, it was their patience. Frederick Douglass, when talking about Abraham Lincoln years after his assassination, said: http://www.ashbrook.org/library/19/douglass/lincolnoration.html

BTW, one of the things I've never quite understood about issue advocacy is the vast pressure for immediate change. I'm sure at least part of it comes from the suffering of individuals affected by the perceived disorder, whatever it happens to be, but I can't help but also wonder if it also comes from a desire, as Conan the Barbarian put it, to crush one's enemies, to see them enemies driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women. I think when it comes to major societal change you HAVE to take the long view. Will it really matter a century from now that gays could serve in 2010 but not 1993? I don't think it will.

Mokele that's an opinion, not a factual statement, and I disagree with you that opposition to gay marriage equates to hating gays. I think that's an example of not understanding or caring what the opposition's argument is, and/or framing it as something it is not in order to convince people to support your cause. I think a key point has been missed here, and it's exactly the same point that can be made about the compromise that the Founding Fathers made with regard to slavery. The country couldn't have been created without it. Nor would gays have been allowed in the military had Clinton (a Democrat) not imposed the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy. Some things take time. Shaking your fist at the sky is great theater, but impractical as a means of progress in a democracy.

So you think all, or a majority of, Republicans hate gays and need to be taught a lesson?

You underestimate the human power of self-deception. At any rate, I question whether the numbers even exist in sufficient quantities to make an impressive demonstration. But given the size of the military you might have a point. Oh no, Sisyphus, that's not true at all! Don't you know? Military personnel were actually shanghai'd by the promise of free education and a fair-wage job! And MOST of them are gay, because most adults are gay, and conservatives hate them because they hate themselves. Didn't you know? You obviously aren't watching enough television, dude. That's where the real information is!

Your statistical trend seems to preclude that possibility. But I'm not surprised at the question. A certain segment of the American political spectrum seems to have trouble grasping either the concept that most people aren't gay, or the concept that some people might actually want to serve their country in harm's way. I wonder what would happen if a significant portion of the American people simultaneously reminded progressives that they don't represent the majority view? Oh right, they'd get called "teabaggers".

Does anybody know where the TSA airport security employment application can be found?

Why?

BTW, if memory serves a lot of those subsidies are slated to be removed in the new budget plan. But we'll see what actually happens when K Street gets busy.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704259304575043494009308442.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Apparently some patients aren't as brain-dead as they appear. Certain kinds of questioning produce a result that appears to be cognitive in nature. The point from researchers appears to be not that there's no such thing as a persistent vegetative state, but that as many as 40% may be misdiagnosed. That doesn't mean they're about to get up and walk out the hospital, it just means that they may be slightly more cognitive than previously thought. These patients were still unable to speak or communicate in any way short of something that can be detected only by an active MRI scan. (ouch) Still, it raises some interesting questions and suggests interesting future lines of research. It also has legal and socio-political implications, suggesting that this type of test be conducted before life termination could be considered. I'm just waiting for someone in the media or a right-wing pundit to bring up Terri Schiavo. That will be unpleasant, but given her tissue-loss situation it seems unlikely that she would have fallen into that category.

If you're going to devolve to infantile face-palms (which I've removed all-but-one from your post, Peak Oil Man) then I think this thread has become pointless. Closed pending moderator review.

How does President Obama react to last year's reports about the hazardous secondary economic effect of ethanol production, the increase of the price at the pump, and the allegations of political influence by the ethanol lobby? By planning to more-than-triple production from 11 million to 36 million gallons per year within 12 years. But there is some evidence that the new government heard the warnings and is at least putting more emphasis on non-edible sources, which would seem to address the lion's share of last year's complaints (e.g. feeding the world's starving poor in stead of American gas tanks): http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6849995.html My opinion: If I hadn't heard yesterday that nuclear is getting a big boost in the 2011 budget I'd think this was a dodge. But it does make sense that all avenues need to be fully explored. I'd like to see more of a boost to solar, but perhaps such a boost is waiting in the wings. What do you all think?

Rofl!!

"Ramp up?" That's all, eh? Just a simple ramp-up and we're good to go, right? It took eight years to basically double the speed of civilian flight to Mach 3. Orbital velocity is about Mach 25. And wing-twisting tricks won't help you deal with re-entry at that velocity, so nothing has been accomplished regarding on that front by SpaceShip 1 at all (though the term "re-entry" was bandied about as if it actually meant something). For civilian efforts to reach the International Space Station (for example), they'll need to double that speed three more times (Mach 3 to Mach 6, to Mach 12, to Mach 24). I guess we can assume for the sake argument that they'll deal with the re-entry velocity problem concurrently. So that's, what, another 24 years? Well we'll see. I'm not convinced that the bottleneck was lack of funds or corporate interest. The goal was cost-efficient space travel, and if that remains the goal of civilian effort then the bottleneck will continue to be the present level of scientific advancement on these frontiers. After all, if inefficient space travel is the goal, then we already have a program that does that. Private industry won't be interested in that. They have to make it pay -- that's the whole point.

Is there any kind of fire that doesn't burn through human flesh? Just curious.

In my opinion those surpluses would have been spent by a Democrat in simply a different manner, and in some cases exactly the SAME manner (e.g. War on Terror following 9/11). Certainly we wouldn't be in Iraq, but we would be in exactly the same situation in Afghanistan as we are now. Subtract a few hundred billion from Iraq, and add it in to health care, and it's a wash.

The spammers have just gotten RIDICULOUS here lately. I thought the membership might get a chuckle out of seeing what their forums look like to the staff these days.

Excellent idea.

This smells like spam. RGF, you can drop me a private message if you like and I'll give you a site you can try. If anybody else wants to see a discussion on this please report this post and we'll consider unlocking it. Thanks.

That appears to be the plan of the current government, Sisyphus. It does not balance the budget. It increases spending. One would think so. An excellent metaphor and I agree. Of course I don't think you're suggesting that exorbitant/unnecessary amounts be spent, just enough to get the job done, right? By the same token, not everyone who disagrees with you about cutting spending is a "don't spend" person. Most of us in the middle just want to see a little more sanity and a lot less special interest influence involved in the process. I'm all for spending money on infrastructure, education, and managing the economy. I'm no contract-law-only libertarian, that's for sure. But spending hundreds of billions of dollars on questionable-value "employment" programs that favor labor unions and other special interests is not wise budget-balancing action. It's politics as usual. And I'd raise the same complaint if it were Republicans favoring religious groups and their special interests. IMO, the days of the notion that one ideological orientation (or political party) is going to save us from the excesses of their opponents need to end. I'd vote for that if it were combined with a corresponding spending decrease. I'd roll back defense, seek legislation to revamp entitlement spending (massively decreasing it and ending, for example, the prescription drug benefit), and limit massive emergency expenditures to a percentage of GDP and require them to be accompanied by a financial plan. I would also pass a law saying that no president can send more than 500 troops (cumulative) onto foreign soil without a declaration of war from Congress, and I would require the government to seek approval from the entire people via referendum at each subsequent national election if any foreign war continues for that long. Lose the referendum, poof, war ends. And I'd probably veto most other legislation that came across my desk. And of course I'd be impeached in a week.

Are the politically correct viewers that your side of the aisle leads by the nose from CNN to Oprah Winfrey and back again really whom you want to identify as your peers? I'm thinking this is not exactly a contest of moral high grounds. Jackson33 makes a valid point in the context of this thread, which is that ultimately what determines what constitutes "a news organization" is the perception of people. In that arena, has already Fox News won, danced its victory jig, and queued up for the next battle. Welcome to social politics in the 21st century.

I don't know if you all remember or not, but a year ago I said that what would be most revealing about this administration would be the fight over its first budget. Well that budget is coming out this week, and it's about to get interesting. IMO this will be a very graphic demonstration of just how far we've gone down the rabbit hole. The Wall Street Journal has already weighed in, focusing on $1 trillion in tax increases and the growth of debt-as-a-percentage-of-GDP from 53% to a whopping 77%. (No, those really aren't the numbers for this sector of the galactic empire, but your local sector official in Rigel thanks you for your inquiry.) BTW, here's a very cool interactive chart at the New York Times. It has some really neat features (developers are getting so good at Javascript these days). http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

Private development is years (probably decades) off and does not logically preclude an government-run manned presence in space. And spending on commercial development is nothing new, it just follows the Bush administration's lead. But in this new NASA-less context the amount is trivial -- if they were serious about having commercial enterprise build a serious manned space flight program then they would give it a serious budget.

You know, raising taxes to balance the budget without doing something about profligate spending makes exactly as much sense as offering an amnesty program without securing the border.