Pangloss

No, the point of my raising that article is that it shows how politics is the overriding concern of Democrats in Congress, not justice. Therefore if a prosecution were to take place, regardless of its objective merits, it would be a political prosecution. If you allow politics to determine the who, when and why of prosecutions, then we all lose.

SCOTUS shot down the Clinton-era LIV. It was resurrected during the Bush administration in a manner considered by some legal experts to be more likely to survive SCOTUS scrutiny (see link below), based on the specifics of the decisions that were handed down in that case. The bill was approved by the House Budget Committee in 2006, but was unsuccessful in the Senate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_item_veto

At this level these objective determinations are irrelevant, in my view. This is politics. Even if we objectively establish the above-described difference, it doesn't matter because the people doing the enforcing are political entities. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedHere's another political reason why this may ultimately go no where. Evidence emerged today that Congressional Democrats may have been briefed in advance about the plan to use waterboarding, and did nothing to stop that from happening. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/07/report-pelosi-briefed-enhanced-interrogation-methods/ That certainly doesn't lay the blame at that doorstep, but it does create a political problem that they will have to address. This, again, is why these problems are not simple matters of objective justice. Once you get to this level it becomes about politics, even if you don't want it to be.

I think it's actually more because of the ubiquitous presence of small, portable generators in nearly every home. They only hold enough gas to get you through a day or so, and then you run out and need more. It makes a funny kind of sense from an emergency planning perspective as well, keeping people off the streets, fed (refrigerator running), and able to watch the TV. Of course, invariably every time we have a hurricane we get a story a day or two later about an entire family, including visiting relatives and neighbors, wiped out overnight by CO poisoning due to a generator left too close to a window or actually being brought indoors, or perhaps placing them right next to the AC vent in the garage.

Sure, but we're talking about discretionary spending at the moment. That's the stuff Congress is supposed to be able to cut when necessary. And when has it ever been more necessary than right now, or at least as soon as this economy recovers? Let me be blunt with my opinion on this: If President Obama cannot restore fiscal responsibility to this government, then I will not be voting for him in 2012. That's assuming I have an alternative who's mature enough to understand that seeing Russia from her back yard does not constitute foreign policy experience, but that is where my inclinations will lie going into that election. And the moderates -- the ones who put Obama where he is today -- are with me on this. Be afraid of this, you spendthrift Congressional Dems! <shakes fist in a northerly direction and then meekly wanders off to work>

Ours all have battery backup. They only last about 12 hours, but it's more than enough for most routine situations. Our gas stations are actually required by law to have generator capability (this being a hurricane-prone region, of course), and there was talk about extending that law to cell phone towers, but I don't think anything ever came of it. (Perhaps because generators have to be refueled -- something a gas station doesn't really have to worry about.)

They actually call it the "least-wanted" list? Cute.

Yes, earning more can balance the books. But it's not realistic to expect that our tax earnings will grow by 200% over the next decade. That's how much we're spending over what we're bringing in. I've read that the budget plan predicts 4% growth annually. I don't have a source for this, so I can't vouch for its accuracy, but it's a reasonable supposition based on the massive growth that the budget seems to suggest is going to be needed. It may not even be enough. If it's accurate, it is a whopper of a figure, and it is what led the Congressional Budget Office to contradict the White House and release its own, much direr, deficit prediction. This is an interactive chart at the Department of Commerce that lets you input date ranges and show GDP: http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2009&Freq=Qtr I punched in 1994 to 2000 (highlighting the Clinton/Gingrich years, which everyone seems to agree is the recent peak in 'good times'), and it shows >4% for 1994, 1997, 1998 and 1999. That's four out of seven. I also punched in the Reagan/O'Neill years ('80-'9) and got back a result showing 1984 having a whopping 7.2% growth, and three more examples of years with 4% or more. So out of 21 years I checked, we only had 8 years with 4% growth or more. That's not a statistical analysis, of course, but I think this does suggest that actually expecting and planning for more than 4% growth is maybe not such a good idea. We need to learn how to cut programs we can't afford.

At this level these objective determinations are irrelevant, in my view. This is politics. Even if we objectively establish the above-described difference, it doesn't matter because the people doing the enforcing are political entities. (That is, by the way, why character matters in elections.) IMO that would just spread the problem wider. But it's a reasonable supposition and I keep an open mind about it.

Well it isn't enough. The budget is ridiculously bloated, and we can't afford it. That's not stimulus, either -- that was a separate package, so this spending is all spending we can't give up because of our bad habits. And WAY too much of the President's plan for eventual return to fiscal responsibility is based on a predicted growth rate that has existed in only a handful of years out of the last few decades, and not enough on actual spending cuts. But it may be what's possible. The problem isn't the President, it's Congress. They're institutionally incapable of cutting spending, because of the very accurate perception that spending is directly tied to re-election. As such, the President has put up a budget that can actually be passed. What else can he do? Give the man the Bush-revamped, potentially SCOTUS-approvable Line Item Veto and it will be a whole different ballgame. Rapid return to fiscal responsibility might actually be possible then. You'd still have a million press stories about single mothers losing this benefit or that, but the moment the recession's over we'd stop spending more than we earn. Also I think it should be recognized that the increases in discretionary spending are primarily in Defense (something Rush Limbaugh certainly doesn't want his listeners to know), and that one of the biggest reasons for the increase is the inclusion of Iran/Afghanistan spending inside of the budget instead of outside of it. The last fact alone added almost $150 billion. But at some point we have to somehow, some way, learn how to stop spending more than we earn. We just have to.

There's actually a very old argument amongst music historians that I remember from my youth. I generally referred to it back then as (my phasing entirely here) the "saddest piece of music debate". Barber's Adagio for Strings is often at the top (it's at the top of mine), but it's a long and distinguished list. Dredging up some very old and tired neurons (who exclaimed "Why can't you just leave us alone?? Oh well, if you must, here you are, now GO AWAY!"), I came up with these other entries from the list: - Albinoni's Adagio - 2nd Movement of Beethoven's 7th symphony - "Fantasia on a Theme of Thomas Tallis" by Ralph Vaughan Williams - 2nd movement of Mahler's 10th Symphony - One of the "Pavane" tunes was usually mentioned -- either Fauré or Ravel; I forget which I can't for the life of me remember the last time I heard this discussion, but it would have been in the early 1980s (yikes!). I know it was used once as the subject for the traditional "experts quiz" during an intermission on NPR's "Live from the Metropolitan Opera" broadcast, which is where I first heard of it. That was in the debate's "operatic form", which is a little bit of a twist that adds arias into the potential pool for consideration. There are some REALLY SAD operas, but personally I've never felt that they quite work on the same level. They're usually sad because of the content more than the actual tonality of the music. A good example might be the "Sull'Aria" duet from Mozart's "Marriage of Figaro", which was famously used in the movie "The Shawshank Redemption" -- does it really sound sad, or is it that the tone of the music implies that the singers are sad? It's a subtle distinction, but I think it applies here. For similar (but completely different) intellectual investigations of music, explore Beethoven's fascination with the C minor key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beethoven_and_C_minor

According to the article below, 20% of US households now have only cell phones and no "land line". The rate of disconnection has apparently increased, possibly spurred by household cost-cutting reflecting the current economic crisis. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hy364yHuEwLK2alU6lD7DOoYhWtgD98122LO1 I was just curious how many folks here have cut their land lines, or perhaps never had them in the first place.

Well that was my point -- the President of the United States was impeached for a blowjob. Only they called it "lying", an excuse which provided sufficient political cover to allow the investigation and impeachment to move forward. But what really happened, of course, is that Republicans were in charge and decided to "get" the Democrat president. This is exactly my point -- we already live in an era of political and retributive prosecution. Now make a pass through the liberal blogosphere, or listen to Air American for a few tenths of a second, and then listen to the way Democrats in Congress frequently pander to that crowd in exactly the same way that Republicans did, and then see if you can tell me with a straight face how Democrats are only upholding the law. But hey, it's just my opinion, and I'd love to be proven wrong. For a couple of decades now I've been itching to see either party break free of the shackles of partisanship. So far I've been disappointed.

You say that, and yet Bill Clinton was impeached, the Bush/Gonzales Justice Department fired prosecutors who looked too closely at Republicans, and Clinton/Reno looked the other way for countless white-color criminals who donated to the DNC. I could go on and on. I submit that we are already experiencing retributive prosecution. Yes, we should prosecute criminals. It's more important, however, that we NOT prosecute people unless it can be objectively proven that they did, in fact, break the law. Not expert opinions. Not prima facie evidence. Not common public knowledge. Proven, beyond a reasonable doubt. Or it has no business in a court. Period. If the issue is actually one of political ideologies, and the positions the politicians in power took were actually supported by facts, it's just that those facts are viewed differently when interpreted by the NEW party in power, then it is ONE HUGE HONKING MISTAKE to prosecute on that basis. And it WILL come back to haunt us, if it hasn't already.

I don't know but it sounds to me like you need to see a doctor right away.

I think any such concept is sheer speculation, but in so far as such speculations have value, my feeling is that the rising complexity, ease-of-use, and ease-of-construction of software is what leads to singularity. Processing horsepower is just the engine. Maybe the engine needs to get more powerful, I don't know. But complex software, made easier to develop and packaged with a strong motivation to develop it (e.g. iPhone apps) is the GPS nav, the steering wheel, and the five-speed transmission.

Our British members may be able to speak more directly to this issue, and when it's come up in the past they seem to have mixed feelings about it. My feeling is that only the most extreme such dangers should be protected by law, if any are at all. An immediate threat can temporarily trump personal freedom, for example, so if something comparable applied here then it should be explored.

Software, IMO. When it comes to the impact of computers on our daily lives (which is ultimately what we're talking about with the concept of "singularity"), software has become far more important than hardware. The processing power of a PC and the demand for personal data storage have leveled off, and the focus has become mobility and decreased expense. But over the same period of time both the Internet and individual programs have become a lot more useful. Maps and GPS devices, localized resource searching (I'm driving down I-75... where's the nearest grocery store?), and the plethora of business portals and portal-based resource products has overhauled the entire Web in terms of usefulness. We're slammed right through "Web 2.0" and are hard-charging towards 3.0 and 4.0. Meanwhile Apple says the iPhone has had a billion downloads. Who would have thought that a simple telephone could be THAT useful just 2-3 years ago? That's not to say that hardware is no longer developed or that it's no longer significant. I daily bemoan the loss of prominence of computer engineering programs and students interested in pursuing them -- that's going to come back to haunt us. But data-driven software is what's changing people's lives. Just my humble opinion, of course.

I agree.

Inability to prosecute an elected official does not directly equate to an inability to make that person "answerable to the people". The difference is one of degree -- is the fact that you have redress via the ballot sufficient to offset abuse during office? The problem with answering that question "no" is that that reaction is subject to political whim. This was a direct causal factor in the downfall of the Roman Republic -- the annual prosecution of the previous year's officials, even to the extent of becoming public entertainment devoid of any reference to the social contract. Which is not to say that such would necessarily happen here, but it does emphasize the point that such things must be carefully weighed and balanced by law and objective judgment.

The problem we face in my country is not so much the lack of outlet for opinion, but the way that opinion is distorted and manipulated by people with ideological goals. The notion seems to be that opinions need to be spun and managed before a society so that its members properly interpret them and draw the correct conclusions. Busy and feeble minds have to be told how to interpret things. A community's basic rules of acceptability, which shape future courses of action, are determined by its most active and engaged participants, therefore, the notion goes, that group must control the perceptions of those who disagree with them. This is the methodology of the partisan demagogue, such as a talk radio hack (though it's certainly not limited to that venue). I propose that people defend the right of an individual to not only say something, but to have the meaning of what they're saying interpreted as intended, and not spun or obfuscated or distorted to suit somebody else's agenda. That would also be something worth defending to the death.

Calling someone's opinion "disgusting" is not a productive or egalitarian form of discourse. Please refrain.

The Obama administration's one and only investigation of the previous administration appears to be about to die a meager death, with the Justice Department investigation into Bush lawyers (who authorized the use of coercive methods that were previously and subsequently deemed to be torture) concluding without an indictment. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jseitMBY7vwNpuvEsb1zvkvaVxrQD980DRC80

There are 159 counties in the US state of Georgia. It's second only to Texas, which has the most with 254. Here's an interesting essay on how that came to be: http://georgiainfo.galileo.usg.edu/countyhistory.htm Next up: A discussion on the use of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium modeling in massively multiplayer online games, applied for the purpose of studying real-world macroeconomics, excerpted from a 2008 IEEE conference workshop on Advanced Information Networking and Applications. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fiel5%2F4482830%2F4482831%2F04482928.pdf%3Farnumber%3D4482928&authDecision=-203