bascule

Yes, Pangloss, I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform. However, you are glossing over the fact that this is a relatively minor part of his energy platform, and that the real focus is alternative energy. Seriously, in the entire page on his energy policy, the only indication that he wanted more offshore drilling was mentioned in two words, and even that didn't specifically mention offshore drilling. And perhaps he was doing it as a hat tip to the massive Republican push towards offshore drilling? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'd love a wind farm in my backyard. Windmills rule.

Aside from Chernobyl, none of these accidents (e.g. Three Mile Island, Windscale) has ever cost a human life, and none have had environmental impact remotely close to this oil spill.

A new posting on the website of the U.S. Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service, or MMS, noted that the agency is busy and the unfolding tragedy that has cost lives and oil might conflict with the May 3 luncheon.

Sure Pangloss, but that's not the issue, so much as the absurdly massive amount of rhetoric surrounding domestic offshore drilling being a panacea for all of our energy woes (Newt Gingrich wrote a whole book on the subject) Would you agree that this issue was not only massively hyped, but little to no attention was paid to potential drawbacks? I mean, sort of? http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy-and-environment/ Securing our Energy Future Our reliance on oil poses a threat to our economic security. Over the last few decades, we have watched our economy rise and fall along with the price of a barrel of oil. We must commit ourselves to an economic future in which the strength of our economy is not tied to the unpredictability of oil markets. We must make the investments in clean energy sources that will curb our dependence on fossil fuels and make America energy independent. Breaking Dependence on Oil. Promote the next generation of cars and trucks and the fuels they run on. Producing More Energy at Home. Enhance U.S. energy supplies through responsible development of domestic renewable energy, fossil fuels , advanced biofuels and nuclear energy. Promoting Energy Efficiency. Promote investments in the transportation, electricity, industrial, building and agricultural sectors that reduce energy bills. Sure, it's in there... I guess. That certainly is not the focus of this administration's energy policy. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd apparently, not anymore! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36865687/ns/us_news-environment/ Obama shelves new offshore drilling 'Must be done responsibly,' president says after rig disaster WASHINGTON - President Barack Obama on Friday directed that no new offshore oil drilling leases be issued unless rigs have new safeguards to prevent a repeat of the explosion that unleashed the massive spill threatening the Gulf Coast with major environmental damage. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged A comparison to Chernobyl isn't apt. Chernobyl had a positive void coefficient which means a coolant failure can (and did) result in disaster. All modern nuclear reactors have a negative void coefficient, which means a coolant failure stops the reaction. Meanwhile, offshore drilling will always carry with it the danger of oil spills.

Really Pangloss... that's all you have to say? "WRONG!" All right. Have any other thoughts on WSJ, News Corp, or Fox you'd like to share with us?

While Fox ("NC") is the main culprit, my main complaints are against Rupert Murdoch in general. This is his machine that he's put in motion and he's responsible for its effects. The WSJ used to be a credible news source. Certainly not lately. Narrative has usurped objectivity. Rupert Murdoch has the power to destroy everything he touches.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/29/news/economy/offshore_drilling_spill/ Oops. Giant oil spill, thanks to offshore drilling. Drill baby drill? I apologize, this is an inauspicious beginning of a post given my recent complaints against poorly-started threads when Fox is involved, but seriously... does the quality of rhetoric presented by the advocates of offshore drilling really demand a more complex response than "oops, real-world examples of the consequences"?

No...

While I'm typically an opponent of capital punishment, I'd support it in the case of David Miscavige

Specifically to a fan of Twilight (or for that matter, Harry Potter), I would suggest checking out The Dark is Rising Sequence by Susan Cooper. As I have not read either Twilight or Harry Potter I can't provide an apt comparison, but I'm curious how someone who started as fans of either of those series would respond to The Dark Is Rising.

Glenn Beck, in his Fox News incarnation, is unprecedented. The only thing Glenn Beck can be compared to is the fictional Howard "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" Beale from the film Network. Howard Beale was a deluded and crazy messianic figure and I'm not really sure that's apt with Glenn Beck, as I think what Beck is doing is more of an act than a true mental disease. I did read (and cringe) at his previous CNN columns... the man is cogent, so unless some tumor is causing his behavior, rather than his transition to a network that gives him carte blanche, I don't think Glenn Beck can be considered a "true" Howard Beale. But still, Howard Beale remains the closest thing I can draw a comparison to. Glenn Beck has inspired followers and started a political movement. According to the Gallup Poll I posted in my tea party thread, the #1 thing the tea party agrees on is Glenn Beck, which isn't surprising as Fox has devoted a considerable amount of airtime to the tea parties and actively promoted them via the 9.12 project. Glenn Beck embodies a similar messianic quality as Howard Beale, spreading a similar doom-and-gloom message about the present world situation, and getting people to express that they're mad as hell and they're not going to take this any more, even though they're not really sure why they're mad and aren't really sure what the this that they're not going to take any more really is. I guess I'm completely failing to point out what differentiates News Corp from real news organizations here... the content of that video is extremely relevant to this thread. Fox is not merely reporting the news. They are interfering. They are an active participant in the political process. They are funneling money into anti-(Democratic) government protests. They are a propaganda organization and in effect a political action committee, not a news organization.

If you actually looked at the context in which I mentioned him, it was as a hypothetical CNN analogue to Glenn Beck and the 9.12 project (which I suppose is a bit ironic in itself as Glenn Beck used to be on CNN) You're linking his reaction to the Fox tea party coverage as evidence of a political angle? I'm curious what your reaction is to the News Corp material he presented, sans his editorial... I'm not a fan of Rick Sanchez. I think he's a bit of a douchebag. But seriously, of all of the segments he's ever done on his show, you're taking issue with that? In that segment, he did a great job of highlighting the problem. News Corp doesn't report on the news. News Corp makes the news. The tail is wagging the dog.

How would banning financial institutions like GS from trading in CDOs be a "loophole" in any way, shape, or form?

The Obama / nuclear weapons post was really case-in-point for me. It was started exclusively with a Fox article. The article referenced contains some blatant factual inaccuracies: Which is wrong... Gates stated the US "reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy" in the event of biological weapons threats. Unfortunately, because the Fox article was the only source cited in the OP, this lead to the following response by D H: Which in turn lead to an extensive and rather heated discussion about this policy and nuclear versus biological threats. Meanwhile the article as Fox represented it is, well, wrong. Biological threats were called out as a possible exception. The same Fox narrative (Obama wouldn't consider nuclear retaliation against a biological attack that kills millions of Americans!) can be found in the Hannity clip in the Daily Show coverage of Fox's response. Hannity is seen circle jerking with Newt Gingrich about doomsday biological scenarios and how stupid it is for Obama to take nukes off the table in that case. Except Obama didn't. In my opinion, News Corp is willfully misrepresenting Obama administration policy in a coordinated manner. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I don't claim to be a news organization. Also, funny you mention the tea parties which are heavily fueled by the News Corp-sponsored 9.12 Project. If you really think that, you aren't paying attention, or since the News Corp narrative re-enforces your own opinions perhaps you simply don't find News Corp objectionable. However, my guess is if Rick Sanchez were to start backing a widespread political movement and used CNN as his platform to drive it, you'd probably take offense. However, nothing like that is happening at CNN or MSNBC. I prefer news sources that, well, at least try to report the news in a somewhat object manner, instead of creating news items like the tea parties then "covering" them. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm not suggesting anything that would be problematic. I'm simply asking people to put a little bit more into an opening post than pasting a News Corp link, extracting a few quotes from that, and giving opinions specifically in response to those quotes. If anything, I'm asking people to self-moderate here, or gently remind those who do create threads with Fox as the sole information source that Fox is not the most objective of news sources and probably not a good source to start a thread with. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I have quoted News Corp on several occasions, but I've decided to stop. News Corp is a problem for which the only solution, in my mind, is to tune out.

As it were, I'm also travelling... presently sitting at the Incheon airport lounge in South Korea. I've received my obligatory "I'm Travelling!" dose of Fox News, but sadly the airport lounges don't play Frontline. Perhaps when I get home.

I would like to propose an informal moratorium on starting threads with News Corp articles. That's not to say that you shouldn't reference a News Corp article in the original post of a thread, but rather that you shouldn't let a News Corp article provide the exclusive content upon which a thread is started. Examples of News Corp sources would include: Fox "News" (cable channel, web site), Wall Street Journal, New York Post, Weekly Standard Is this an ad hominem against News Corp? Just because a News Corp-owned organization authors an article doesn't necessarily make it wrong. I certainly can't defend that position. However, I have noticed many threads which have generated unneeded, vitriolic discussion due to how News Corp sources have framed the article. To reiterate, this doesn't necessarily make the articles themselves wrong, however they have been authored to fit a preconceived narrative. Ample evidence of said preconceived narrative can be found in this thread. The problem with starting a thread using a News Corp source is that this narrative translates to and ends up dominating the discussion, until such time that the particular arguments made in the course of the thread manage to eventually unravel the News Corp narrative and everyone realizes it's much ado about nothing. An example of such a case where News Corp presenting an event within the context of their narrative can be found in this thread: Obama: No Nukes- Even In Self Defense. The title was pinched by the OP from a Fox headline, a headline they have since revised after I suppose Fox themselves deemed it too wrong to keep in in circulation. Much of the thread focused on the discussion of nuclear retaliation against bioweapons, something Obama, in fact, kept open, despite ample discussion on the Fox cable channel to the contrary. This is just one of many examples and I would love to bring up more examples throughout the course of this thread illustrating why letting the News Corp narrative dominate the discussion is counterproductive. So, if people were to jump on this proposal, what should they do? If you wish to include a News Corp source in the original post of a thread, include other sources as well. Post common themes between multiple news sources. Provide your own opinion about he matter rather than providing News Corp's opinion verbatim. Avoid quoting News Corp sources in the title of your thread. If someone starts a thread citing only a News Corp source, provide additional sources, commentary, your own opinion, and gently remind the poster that News Corp is not a traditional news organization and is attempting to foster a particular narrative in which they present news which is not objective and in many cases can lead to counterproductive discussion. In extreme cases it may be necessary to start a new thread which presents a particular world event or point of interest outside the News Corp narrative. I hope this does not violate the forum rules as I certainly wouldn't want to advocate that. The goal of eschewing News Corp when starting threads is to facilitate original independent thought and opinion when starting threads and avoiding having News Corp invective dominating a thread right off the bat. By doing so and providing a less biased, more ecumenical perspective derived from multiple news sources we can have a more happy and productive forum on world issues. What do you think?

It's a very tricky issue that uses theoretical computer science I don't fully understand. The best metaphor is encryption. They "encrypted" the toxic assets into CDOs using a previously unknown method which renders them undetectable to the purchaser. To my knowledge Goldman was the only one to figure out this method and certainly the only one who knew about it prior to the financial crisis. The method renders it computationally infeasible to detect toxic assets embedded in a CDO. The thing Goldman knew that the purchasers of its derivatives didn't was that Goldman had come upon such a method for disguising toxic assets and didn't tell anyone.

Really? Like a $700,000,000,000 bailout? If we learned something from the financial crisis, it's that financials are too complex to effectively manage their own risk. Given that, what choice do we have but to put mechanisms in place so third parties (e.g. the federal government) can attempt to assess that risk, and systemic risks? Personally I hope to see the federal government put a ban in place on large financials trading in CDOs, forcing them to spin off these divisions into separate companies.

The illegal bit of it is Goldmann misrepresented their product. They created derivatives which were designed to fail, had full knowledge that the embedded time bomb within these derivatives was undetectable by the purchaser, and still passed it off as if it were a totally legitimate product. As far as regulation goes, just making derivatives trading between public corporations transparent to the public would go a long way to helping assess systemic risks. This is exactly what Brooksley Born wanted to do in the late '90s. It's still needed. If the financial crisis demonstrated anything, it's that assessing the risk of large financial corporations is incredibly complex and they do a lousy job of assessing their own risk, much less risk to the overall system If the financials can't self-regulate, the government really needs to step in.

Err whoops, yes the Sprawl Trilogy. Sorry, just read the Bridge Trilogy for the first time recently (Virtual Light is the first book) so it's still fresh in my brain. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I really liked the Difference Engine. However, I must say I recently reread it because I did not finish it the first time around. It is a difficult book to get through. It's also coauthored by Bruce Sterling, who I really like but maybe you didn't...

Do we just assume, de facto, that every politician is corrupt? Is Ron Paul corrupt? Is Dennis Kucinich corrupt?

*facepalm* yay, someone else making the argument that if we just cut spending we can lower taxes and the deficit simultaneously! That doesn't change the fact that lowering taxes is still harmful to the deficit, and will continue to be until we're running a budget surplus. We're nowhere close to running a budget surplus. Only when we are running a budget surplus can we cut taxes without harming the deficit. It's about as simple as accounting gets. You cannot help the little boy and the little girl at the same time until we're in a very different situation from the one we're in today. Helping one will hurt the other until the budget is balanced. And the Laffer Curve rears its ugly head yet again. Sorry, this is the very argument that created our national debt. Reagan made it. George H.W. Bush made it. George Bush made it. These three guys basically bankrupted our country. This approach has been tried. The result is the overwhelming majority of our present national debt. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

I really detest blanket statements like this. Hate to cause dissent in a "common ground" thread.

Yeah, here's what I get from the Tea Party: Concern about the national debt: Concern about taxes: The problem is that the solutions to these problems are mutually exclusive. It's like complaining that our country's proverbial house is on fire, but the fire department is using too much water. Tax cuts will make the deficit worse. These are not problems we can effectively work on at the same time. The issue is that their "platform", if you can call it that, is very much internally inconsistent, not "nuanced".

I'd suggest reading Mona Lisa Overdrive so you can finish off the Bridge Trilogy. After that... Virtual Light?