Sure. When you need to cross the street, you never look both ways in order to minimize the risk of getting hit. Jesus.

While I think Ray's phrasing was inartful, the point is that if you wanted to minimize the risk, you wouldn't cross the street at all.

Why do you do it to yourself? Serious question. I mean, why not save it for people who are actually interested in a dialogue, and are open to changing their minds on occasion?

I'm sure there's a lot of self-awareness in that statement.

Sure. When you need to cross the street, you never look both ways in order to minimize the risk of getting hit. Jesus.

That's not "minimizing" the risk; it's decreasing the risk. If you were solely concerned with "minimizing" the risk of crossing the street, you could get the risk all the way down to zero, by not crossing the street at all.

E-X, you've got more stomach than I do in engaging this nonsense at length.

At length? I recall having a single exchange with E-X on this issue. He hasn't even been around the last couple of days. He's been off "dealing with real problems" that are far, far more important than those the rest of us deal with. Like taking his class on field trips. And teaching for "a day and a half straight." And staying up late. Then he had the difficult task of dealing with a bomb threat.

Really, I don't know why public education is even an issue in this country, as long as we have E-X and Angelina Jolie to Save The Children.

To argue that considering the cost of an improvement is inherently wrong is to argue that it needs to be 100% accident (or injury) free.

No, it's not. The discussion concerning the Pinto has never touched on crumple zones, air bags, side impact protect, roll-overs, or anything besides the gas tank. YOU are the only person who keeps bringing it up, trying to hide the gas tank issue behind a bunch of issues nobody cares about.

I know that nobody here has specifically mentioned those things, but the logic employed is the same, and there's no principle which separates the design of any of those things from the fuel tank design.

No subcompact at the time had airbags. Nobody reasonably expected or demanded the Pinto to have one.

I repeat: Nader was crusading to have Congress require that all cars have them. This was back when people took Nader seriously, and it was a serious issue which the auto companies spent a lot of lobbying effort fighting.

Yeah, Mother Jones must be lying.

Kind of like how they lied about the death totals? Hard to imagine.

From the aforementioned book, Robert Alexander and Harold MacDonald, who were part of Ford's planning committee, testified that they were unaware of any data concerning the vulnerability of the Pinto pre-production. Their testimony was rebutted by Harley Copp, who had been the engineer in charge of the crash testing program involving the Pinto and testified that the results had indeed been reported to management.

"Reported to management" means that Robert Alexander and Harold MacDonald knew about them and were lying?

But wait a minute -- the statement you gave is that they were unaware of the data pre-production. According to Schwartz, citing the NHTSA investigation, Ford did crash tests, the car did badly, and they modified the design in response. Only after the car was introduced did they do the next round of tests, which are presumably the ones in question.

And all I'm saying is that, given the available data they had, Ford made a horrible, horrible decision, one that deserves our scorn and disgust. This issue could've been nipped in the bud. The calculus involved in Ford's CBA involved accepting risks that not only could have been avoided, but should have been, and for a relatively small price tag. (That they then got deceptive about it was extra-special.) It's one thing to say, well, they have to use a CBA of some sort. We're still allowed to criticize their analysis and conclusions, and call them on what they did: They knowingly built a car that was vulnerable to fires, chose to ignore easy, cheap solutions, and put it to market. It was a despicable decision, and we should make it an example of what not to do.

If the Pinto were actually significantly more dangerous than other cars in its class, I would agree with this in a heartbeat. Since it wasn't, I find it hard to be so condemning.

You are always welcome to take my classes on field trips, provided that you can pass the necessary background checks.

Certainly why exclude Florida, where both candidates were on the ballot? (Yes, you can argue that if the delegates were going to be seated, the candidates might have changed their strategic approaches towards Florida. But so what? That's relevant to the issue of popularity, but not to the issue of votes actually received. Superficially, it seems more reasonable to exclude Michigan, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot there. But Obama's failure to be on the ballot wasn't because he was kept off the ballot by Clinton cronies or something; rather, he wasn't on the ballot because of a strategic choice he made. He thought it would help him pander better to Iowa voters if he wasn't on the Michigan ballot. He'd have gotten more votes in Michigan if he were on that ballot -- but perhaps fewer in Iowa. So if you exclude Michigan in the name of "fairness," isn't it also required that you exclude Iowa as well?

No. But thanks for playing the "concern troll" game with the best of them.

Claiming that Obama - and Edwards, and Richardson, and Biden (everyone but Clinton and Dodd) were somehow "pandering" to Iowa voters by pulling their names off the ballot in Michigan is just absurd. They did so at the urging of the DNC.

Same goes for the decision by all the candidates (except Clinton) to not campaign in Florida. The rules of the delegate selection process were set by the DNC. All the other candidates followed the rules. The fact that Clinton - the best known candidate coming into the campaign, and by far the best known candidate at the time of the Florida and Michigan votes - "won" in venues where none of her competitors even introduced themselves to voters told the party nothing about what their preference was. At best it told the party what her name recognition was relative to the others at that time. As if they didn't know that already.

There's a reason Harold Ickes voted within the DNC to strip both states of their delegates for violating the agreement on primary dates, and it wasn't because he wanted those votes for Hillary to count. At the time, anyway; then she started to lose some primaries and caucuses and suddenly he wanted to pretend he didn't mean to do that.

Terry McAuliffe felt the same way not so long ago, and told Carl Levin so during the '04 campaign, when similar events occurred. As described by McAuliffe in his book:

"I'm going outside the primary window," [Michigan Sen. Carl Levin] told me definitively.

"If I allow you to do that, the whole system collapses," I said. "We will have chaos. I let you make your case to the DNC, and we voted unanimously and you lost."

He kept insisting that they were going to move up Michigan on their own, even though if they did that, they would lose half their delegates. By that point Carl and I were leaning toward each other over a table in the middle of the room, shouting and dropping the occasional expletive.

"You won't deny us seats at the convention," he said.

"Carl, take it to the bank," I said. "They will not get a credential. The closest they'll get to Boston will be watching it on television. I will not let you break this entire nominating process for one state. The rules are the rules. If you want to call my bluff, Carl, you go ahead and do it."

We glared at each other some more, but there was nothing much left to say. I was holding all the cards and Levin knew it.

It's downright nutty to pretend that Barack Obama wasn't "known" to Florida voters at the time of their primary vote. Obama would never have had a chance in Florida - every single Dem constituency, from seniors to Jews to hispanics to blue-collar panhandlers, was a natural Hillary voter bloc - and the results in that state almost certainly reflect a valid outcome. Michigan, not so much.

It's downright nutty to pretend that Barack Obama wasn't "known" to Florida voters at the time of their primary vote. Obama would never have had a chance in Florida - every single Dem constituency, from seniors to Jews to hispanics to blue-collar panhandlers, was a natural Hillary voter bloc - and the results in that state almost certainly reflect a valid outcome. Michigan, not so much.

The only thing downright nutty is the Republicans and libertarians here pretending they have some sense of where the Democratic Party electorate was on the date of the Florida primary-that-wasn't-a-primary, in the absence of any retail campaigning in the state by any of the candidates. For one thing, Edwards was still viable at that time; who's to say he wouldn't have won a real Florida primary, if he had spent time and money there, or pulled a lot of votes from both of the others, so that no one got a majority?

And of course none of them spent time or money there, which affected the dynamic of the rest of the states. For all we know Hillary might have been in even more dire financial straits by now (probably much sooner, in fact) if she had to make big TV buys in Florida, given the way she frontloaded all her spending to try to end the whole thing by Super Tuesday. Or maybe a blowout in a "true" contest might have dried up the future fundraising of both Obama and Edwards, because it would have given her a big early delegate lead. Woulda, coulda, shoulda, though. None of that happened, because no sanctioned vote happened.

I know that nobody here has specifically mentioned those things, but the logic employed is the same, and there's no principle which separates the design of any of those things from the fuel tank design.

That's untrue and you know it. Anyone buying a subcompact understands they're buying a smaller, lighter vehicle and more vulnerable to collisions than a larger, heaver car, but an internal problem, one that was well-documented by the vehicle's engineers, isn't going to be obvious to the consumer.

Moreover, Nader was demanding that all cars have airbags; in that respect the Pinto is lumped in with every other car on the road. The problem we're discussing was most definitely NOT shared with every other car on the road.

Yeah, Mother Jones must be lying.
Kind of like how they lied about the death totals? Hard to imagine

You have no idea about that; you just enjoy throwing the word around. Schwartz noted internal Ford memoranda showed that the Pinto's rear-fire fatality rate was considerably higher than that of other subcompacts. The FARS data Schwartz references said that Pintos, while 1.9% of the auto population was responsible for 4.1% of fire fatalities. There wasn't a breakdown of the numbers made available, but MJ's numbers fall easily in line with conservative extrapolations of the numbers available.

But wait a minute -- the statement you gave is that they were unaware of the data pre-production. According to Schwartz, citing the NHTSA investigation, Ford did crash tests, the car did badly, and they modified the design in response.

No, you're wrong. This is what Schwartz wrote:

The company began planning the Pinto in June 1967. Its basic design concept was approved... in December 1968. ... Not long afterwards, Ford began crash-testing Pinto prototypes... In October 1971, Ford officials decided against incorporating any of these modifications into current Pintos... Ford eventually complied with the rear-end feature of the 1977 standard by installing a plastic shield in front of the fuel tank and by lengthening the filler pipe.

In other words, Ford put off making modifications until 1977, when the law changed to require such modifications. And as you yourself noted, Ford worked hard to delay the enactment of such auto safety laws.

If the Pinto were actually significantly more dangerous than other cars in its class, I would agree with this in a heartbeat. Since it wasn't, I find it hard to be so condemning.

And as been noted here and elsewhere, the Pinto was actually significantly more dangerous. But even beyond that, I find it astonishing that you seem to have zero problems with a company that lied under oath to its consumers about its vehicle. Moreover, for someone who seems to pride himself on demanding individual accountability, you seem to have no problems with letting companies skate with actual lying, and not the "lying" you so enjoy accusing people who don't agree with you.

Claiming that Obama - and Edwards, and Richardson, and Biden (everyone but Clinton and Dodd) were somehow "pandering" to Iowa voters by pulling their names off the ballot in Michigan is just absurd. They did so at the urging of the DNC.

It was a pander to Iowa. Taking their names off the ballot went beyond the pledge the candidates all took.

Same goes for the decision by all the candidates (except Clinton) to not campaign in Florida.

Actually, Obama was the only candidate to violate the pledge to not campaign in Florida. All Clinton did in Florida was hold fundraisers, which was explicitly allowed by the pledge.

That said, I don't think either primaries should count. The DNC handled it terribly, and they should get re-votes.

Actually, Obama was the only candidate to violate the pledge to not campaign in Florida. All Clinton did in Florida was hold fundraisers, which was explicitly allowed by the pledge.

Uh, yeah, right. The fine print on that poster is my favorite part.

Hosting a victory party at 7 PM the night of the election is not campaigning.

No, but the idea that she wasn't doing any campaigning was pretty weak. As Chip noted, the group Florida for Hillary actively campaigned for, advertised for, raised money for Clinton, and she shows up for their events. Just because they have the wee disclaimer hardly means much when they walk and quack like every other duck in her pond.

And what the heck was she doing hosting a victory party for an election she vowed not to participate in? It's pretty transparent, for those who want to look.

The only events Clinton showed up for before the primary were fundraisers, which were allowed by the agreement. Obama also hosted fundraisers, and he had groups campaigning and organizing on his behalf.

In Michigan, groups called "Michiganders for Obama" and "Michigan for Edwards" ran radio ads telling voters to vote "uncommitted."

The Obama campaign and the media worked hard to spread the idea that Clinton was campaigning in Florida and Michigan, but she didn't break the pledge or do any type of campaigning that Obama didn't do himself.

In Michigan, groups called "Michiganders for Obama" and "Michigan for Edwards" ran radio ads telling voters to vote "uncommitted."

Given that Clinton was the only contender to keep her name on the ballot, and given how hard she had her own people pushing in a state she was supposedly not campaigning in, I think that's pretty understandable. Both the other campaigns foresaw that Clinton would try to use such a cheap win as an actual win against them, and they were right.

I see.

Clinton does it --> Clinton's evil
Obama does it --> Clinton's evil

I see.

Clinton does it --> Clinton's evil
Obama does it --> Clinton's evil

You're complicating things, Danny. Let me help:

Clinton's evil.

I think Clinton's evilness works independent of other factors. Have you considered the idea that perhaps the whole Michigan issue could have been avoided had Clinton just done as the other two did?

Have you considered the idea that perhaps the whole Michigan issue could have been avoided had Clinton just done as the other two did?

Considering she's being blamed for the whole Florida issue despite having just done what Obama did, I don't see why Michigan would be any different.

You don't see the difference between being on the ballot and not being on the ballot? You find nothing inconsistent with Clinton pledging to follow the DNC's lead on Florida before declaring the Florida elections to be perfectly valid? Okay.

I'm hungry, but there's nothing in the house for me to eat.

Mm, tuna.

You don't see the difference between being on the ballot and not being on the ballot? You find nothing inconsistent with Clinton pledging to follow the DNC's lead on Florida before declaring the Florida elections to be perfectly valid? Okay.

It's as if Danny's the love child of Ray and DMN.

More chilling stuff about some of our deranged administration's recent moves:

Is an Attack on Iran Imminent?

More chilling stuff about some of our deranged administration's recent moves:

Is an Attack on Iran Imminent?

Woo, CommonDreams.org!

One thing progressives definitely have up on neocons; they're far better at accumulating their lunatic ramblings in central locations. Conservative ########## like Malkin and Coulter are unfortunately more scattered.

Flaming arkitekton isn't really worth it - considering how many people have him on ignore, most people would just see ####### and become confused. I was editing out some spam that had gotten into this thread and noticed that arky doesn't even make arguments anymore, he just congratulates smarter people with similar political beliefs on their posts.

I'm straight-up not getting involved in this thread, and haven't bothered to read the whole thing. But wanted to raise two things that seem pertinent to the discussion in case they haven't come up: 1) Hitler. Just throwing that out there. 2) Brian Wood's DMZ comic series, which is basically the US in a civil war where both sides are vying for control of NYC. It's a not very thinly veiled comparison to the occupation of Iraq, Baghdad in particular, that's was pretty well-executed at least in the early issues. Wood plays out precisely the issue you guys were discussing. I'm not sure Wood takes a position on gun control, the assumption being that once anarchy/occupation occurs, all bets are off and there's enough guns in circulation that they can be acquired pretty readily. It's an enjoyable read. Sorry if I'm repeating anyone, didn't feel like skimming through 1500 more posts to see if anyone mentioned it...

Flaming arkitekton isn't really worth it

*flames him*

:D

I think Clinton's evilness works independent of other factors. Have you considered the idea that perhaps the whole Michigan issue could have been avoided had Clinton just done as the other two did?

As the other two did? There were more than three people in the Democratic primaries; not all of them decided to pander that way in Iowa. Gravel, Dodd, and Kucinich also remained on the Michigan primary ballot.

While the DNC instructed candidates not to campaign in Florida or Michigan, it did not tell them to take their names off the ballot. That was John Edwards' idea, which he convinced Obama's campaign to go along with.

I know that nobody here has specifically mentioned those things, but the logic employed is the same, and there's no principle which separates the design of any of those things from the fuel tank design.

That's untrue and you know it. Anyone buying a subcompact understands they're buying a smaller, lighter vehicle and more vulnerable to collisions than a larger, heaver car, but an internal problem, one that was well-documented by the vehicle's engineers, isn't going to be obvious to the consumer.

Moreover, Nader was demanding that all cars have airbags; in that respect the Pinto is lumped in with every other car on the road. The problem we're discussing was most definitely NOT shared with every other car on the road.

You keep raising differences without distinction. I agree that people know that subcompacts are smaller and lighter; they may know that these cars are less safe. But that doesn't mean they know what the difference in risk is. I agree that the Pinto was like other cars in not having airbags, but so what? The technology was available and could have been used; Ford made a conscious decision not to put it in, knowing that more people would die in accidents. How is that not a design flaw, whether it applied to one car or all of them?

Yeah, Mother Jones must be lying.

Kind of like how they lied about the death totals? Hard to imagine

You have no idea about that; you just enjoy throwing the word around. Schwartz noted internal Ford memoranda showed that the Pinto's rear-fire fatality rate was considerably higher than that of other subcompacts. The FARS data Schwartz references said that Pintos, while 1.9% of the auto population was responsible for 4.1% of fire fatalities. There wasn't a breakdown of the numbers made available, but MJ's numbers fall easily in line with conservative extrapolations of the numbers available.

There were indeed numbers; I don't know why you're ignoring the actual data cited in favor of out-of-context percentages that don't have either a numerator or denominator attached to them. See page 1030 of the Schwartz article.

But wait a minute -- the statement you gave is that they were unaware of the data pre-production. According to Schwartz, citing the NHTSA investigation, Ford did crash tests, the car did badly, and they modified the design in response.

No, you're wrong. This is what Schwartz wrote:
The company began planning the Pinto in June 1967. Its basic design concept was approved... in December 1968. ... Not long afterwards, Ford began crash-testing Pinto prototypes... In October 1971, Ford officials decided against incorporating any of these modifications into current Pintos... Ford eventually complied with the rear-end feature of the 1977 standard by installing a plastic shield in front of the fuel tank and by lengthening the filler pipe.
In other words, Ford put off making modifications until 1977, when the law changed to require such modifications. And as you yourself noted, Ford worked hard to delay the enactment of such auto safety laws.

What did Schwartz write in the places where you Dowdified away the text? Or, say, in the footnotes to that text? For readers who don't go to the original article: Softabll omitted the exact phrase where Schwartz said, "Ford responded to these tests by somewhat modifying the Pinto's rear design before production began.," the text that directly refutes his claim.

If the Pinto were actually significantly more dangerous than other cars in its class, I would agree with this in a heartbeat. Since it wasn't, I find it hard to be so condemning.

And as been noted here and elsewhere, the Pinto was actually significantly more dangerous.

And as has been noted truthfully here and elsewhere, it wasn't. Danger is not measured by some data-mined out-of-context quote from some engineer, but by actual safety data. The fatality rate from Pintos -- I'm not talking about the rate from one type of incident, but from the car overall -- was not unusually high.

But even beyond that, I find it astonishing that you seem to have zero problems with a company that lied under oath to its consumers about its vehicle. Moreover, for someone who seems to pride himself on demanding individual accountability, you seem to have no problems with letting companies skate with actual lying, and not the "lying" you so enjoy accusing people who don't agree with you.

Lied to its consumers? I don't think so. What consumers were relying upon some testimony in some proceeding to decide whether to buy a Pinto?

Both libertarians and liberals are concerned about fraud, but one of the differences between the two is that liberals often seem to want to read the element of reliance out of the crime/tort of fraud.

Woo, CommonDreams.org! One thing progressives definitely have up on neocons...

The cluck factor in this thread just skyrocketed. Don't encourage them, Joe. I guess it's too much to note that every political position has its share of thoughtful writers, shills, academics, and wackos

And I guess anything's better than actually checking the evidence, then seeing if there's any action to be taken. Nah. That's no fun.

*flames him*

:D

As for you, you're off the short list!

While I agree with David's particular points in this debate about the Pinto, I also think that the debate itself illustrates how difficult it is to be an informed consumer.

While we can argue whether "merchantability" is the correct standard (and personally I'd rather it be beefed up) surely if you think Ford sold you a defective Pinto this can be handled under a claim for breach of contract. Even the wackiest of libertarians surely don't object to that? And even the most zealous Marxist surely wouldn't try and turn everything into a tort? So what's the problem here?

...surely if you think Ford sold you a defective Pinto this can be handled under a claim for breach of contract.

Coming Soon: Lawsuits From Beyond the Grave!

It's as if Danny's the love child of Ray and DMN.

They defend Clinton against silly attacks that have no basis in fact?

Link to Brian Wood's DMZ in case anyone's interested....
http://www.brianwood.com/index.php?id=books

Flaming arkitekton isn't really worth it

True, that. It's kinda like flaming Churchill. You can do it, but you just wind up looking petty.

They defend Clinton against silly attacks that have no basis in fact?

Just ribbing you, Danny.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how splendid is the third paragraph of post 1937. I feel the surge, if you will, of a major article coming on. Tenure track, baby!

And I guess anything's better than actually checking the evidence, then seeing if there's any action to be taken.

I'd like to thank arkitekton for giving me an opening to play the Rational, Analytical Observer card. Let's examine the evidence.

... a charge that was debunked last fall in the National Intelligence Estimate. The NIE did, in fact, say something like that. The NYT essentially contradicts itself: first, it says that "Tehran is likely keeping its options open with respect to building a weapon, but that intelligence agencies 'do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.'" Then, it says "a military-run Iranian program intended to transform that raw material into a nuclear weapon has been shut down since 2003". I guess this means that we don't know, but we're pretty sure they aren't. Or maybe we know the "military-run Iranian program" has been shut down, but we're not sure if some other part of Iran is running one, too.

The NYT does bring up two additional relevant points: one, that the ongoing "enrichment program could still provide Iran with enough raw material to produce a nuclear weapon sometime by the middle of next decade, a timetable essentially unchanged from previous estimates." Two, that NIEs have been wrong before, and how.

According to international experts, the U.S. declared economic war against Iran on March 20. I am generally suspicious of "international experts" on any subject who are neither named nor cited as affiliated with any particular organization. Who exactly says this and what are their qualifications?

The March 11 resignation of CENTCOM Commander Admiral William Fallon ... [who] “openly opposed Bush’s Iran policy and was a lone voice against taking military action to stop the Iranian nuclear program.” That's certainly what the article says, although its accuracy is uncertain. Other sources have suggested that Fallon's "actual views weren't significantly different from those of others in the administration" and that he "felt used as a tool to attack President Bush".

The recent removal of Vice Admiral John Stufflebeem, Commander of the 6th Fleet (Mediterranean Sea), also known to be a critic of the administration’s war plans. This is thin gruel. According to that bastion of warmongering, the Washington Post, Stufflebeem was removed because "he lied about having an inappropriate relationship while working at the White House in 1990." CNN says essentially the same thing. If there's a political dimension here, it's well-hidden.

Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon last month ... “The United States would want its warships in the eastern Mediterranean in the event of a military action against Iran.” Yes, you'd think there was a political standoff over Lebanon's presidency going on at the time, or something.

Current speculation is that the real purpose of the raid was to “force Syria to switch on the targeting electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses.” Knowing the electronic signatures of these systems would reduce the risks for U.S. and Israeli warplanes heading to Iranian targets. Current speculation by whom, exactly? Who's being quoted here? And it's quite a leap to assume that Israel would be attacking Iran alongside the United States, given how passive the Israelis have been in both Gulf War I and Gulf War II.

Israel conducted its largest military exercises ever beginning the week of April 6. This exercise simulated missile strikes from Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. (Note: Both 9/11 and the London subway bombing of 7/7/07 occurred simultaneous by with military and/or civil defense exercises.) Oh, so he's a 9/11 truther? Okay. It's ... a little weird to cite exercises that have been over for two weeks as evidence of an oncoming war. Wouldn't you launch the attack at the time of the scheduled "exercises"? Oh, wait. Someone did make that prediction. And I hate to say this, but we're back to the unsupported assumption that Israel will somehow be joining in the Iran war, if there is one.

One day after a March visit from Vice President Cheney, the Saudi government announced “national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom.” This announcement came following warnings of possible attacks on Iran’s nearby Bushehr nuclear reactors. I honestly don't mean to sound like a jerk about this, but I can find no reference to this tidbit in any major media publication. It is possible that it happened just as the article says -- I just can't verify it.

According to former U.N. chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the Pentagon has contracted for additional bunker-buster bombs and planes that carry them. Delivery is due this month. According to that post above, the bombs were due at the start of April. Note that this post, which includes many of the same points, names the week of April 6th as the date for the attack to be launched. Just because one guy making a prediction was wrong doesn't mean everyone making the same prediction will be wrong, of course. Still. Cry wolf too often and people will stop listening to you.

The oncoming monsoon season, which would carry radioactive fallout by wind and rain to countries east of Iran (including Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India), narrows the window for the optimal launch of an air attack. Assuming he's talking about the summer monsoon, it generally starts around the beginning of June.

The rest is mostly some boilerplate alleging that the U.S. can't be trusted with nukes any more than Iran can, along with the unsupported assumption that an attack on Iran will be partly nuclear.

I find it plausible that Bush could be planning an attack on Iran. I find it plausible that Bush could even intend to launch an attack on Iran. I just don't see a whole lot here that's convincing on the matter. And yes, I get bored really easily on Sunday mornings.

I'd like to thank arkitekton for giving me an opening to play the Rational, Analytical Observer card. Let's examine the evidence.

Strong post, MH1F. I haven't had time to check your checks, but yours is exactly the kind of analysis needed. I'd no more take an article appearing on CommonDreams at face value than I would one appearing in the NYT or WSJ. What I do appreciate is that CD posts work that's hard to find elsewhere and, sometimes, worth reading.

Wow. This thread is still going?

kevin! Yeah--a couple things came up. On to 3000!

btw, I'm entirely sympathetic to McCain's stance that his 100 years comment has been taken out of context. That said, in order to get to the point where U.S. troops can, without casualities, begin a 100 year occupation, McCain has to commit to "winning" the current war/occupation. How is this fact any less damning, if you're a Democratic candidate, than the distortions we've heard of McCain's original statement? And, if you're a Democratic candidate, why not pound him on the details of how "winning" will be accomplished, and how long it will take? He'll have to reply, it will take as long as it takes, to which the commercial goes, [voice:]'John McCain will commit us to an endless war in Iraq... General Petraeus says it will take another 10 years just to pacify Iraq [quote appears onscreen, superimposed over Petraeus testifying before Congress]...that's 10,000 more U.S. soldiers dead, another 100,000 U.S. soldier wounded, another $5 trillion dollars, gone... Can the United States afford another president this out of touch?'.

Run that 5000 times, and it's hard to see how even that pinko Obama would lose Pennsylvania.

edit: huh. I just caught a clip of DNC chair Howard Dean talking about this very subject. In a couple of paragraphs he actually seemed to have grown a spine. How long will that last?

Been away awhile, arky. Hong Kong.

While we can argue whether "merchantability" is the correct standard (and personally I'd rather it be beefed up) surely if you think Ford sold you a defective Pinto this can be handled under a claim for breach of contract. Even the wackiest of libertarians surely don't object to that? And even the most zealous Marxist surely wouldn't try and turn everything into a tort? So what's the problem here?

I can't speak for the wackiest of libertarians -- that's really far out -- but of course it could be handled under breach of contract. The problem for the Naderite/trial lawyer crowd is that you can't get millions of dollars in punitives out of a breach of contract case.

It's probably exaggerating to say that McCain's fortunes as a candidate depend on the way Iraq goes over the next six months, but not by much.

If things go the way McCain's got to be hoping for -- the casualty trendlines are steadily declining, the Iraqi Army takes on an increasing role, al-Sadr is increasingly marginalized, the government doesn't go to hell in a handbasket after the next elections -- then McCain can win. I don't say that he will win, only that he can win. He can also win if he can sell the media on this narrative, whether it's accurate it or not.

If things don't go that way, or if the media won't sell it, McCain loses to Obama, and he probably loses to Clinton -- unless he can believably tack around to a view on Iraq that accords more with the popular view. I don't see that as likely, certainly not against Obama.

The Democrats will certainly hammer McCain on the war in the latter scenario, as they should, but I think they probably won't hammer him as much as antiwar types would like, for two reasons:

1> It'll be problematic for the eventual Democratic president's decision-making process on Iraq; both Obama and Clinton have so far been somewhat coy about their withdrawal plans, and, if anything, they'll probably only get more so once we move into the general election season and both candidates run toward the center.

2> Democrats will fear winning the (presidential) battle and losing the (national security ) war. If a Democrat wins, pulls out of Iraq, and the media spins the result as a complete humanitarian catastrophe, having been gung-ho to get out will look really bad in hindsight.

2144 is astute, though I suggest you're taking a longer view, when it comes to the implications of campaign tactics, than must candidates tend to do.

Your 1: Both Dems have promised to withdraw from Iraq by the end of 2010. If events there in 2009 require a profound rethinking, I don't believe either candidate is going to hedge susbtantially in 2008 because they may have to change course specifically in response to events that might occur in 2009. Both Dems are sharp enough to know they can't start hedging much at all with plans for withdrawal without getting clobbered, and both are sharp enough to know the electorate is pretty forgiving, as long as you're right. With regard to coyness, the repsonse, 'I can't be more specific than withrawing one or two of our brigades a month without losing negotiating leverage with the Iraqi government...' should suffice. Strange to say, it does have the virtue of truth.

Your 2: It may look bad in hindsight, but if there is indeed a human catastrophe, it will likely be far from clear where the fault lies. The American electorate doesn't even consider Iraq the main problem facing the U.S., and by most people's definitions (not mine) we're currently at war there. That most Americans will do other than shake a sorry head at events there once we're gone seems unlikely.

I won't predict Obama, but it's hard for me to think that Hillary will fear a hypothetical version of events that might tend to make withdawal look bad once she's behind the desk in the Oval Office.

"Mike Hampton": I didn't think it was worth dissecting the Commondreams article. If you're going to do so, how about this one:

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a “limited” nuclear attack on the main Iranian underground site in Esfahan would result in three million people killed by radiation within two weeks and 35 million people exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.

The Union of Concerned Scientists actually said that this could happen, if we attacked Esfahan with a nuclear weapon that we haven't even developed yet. So it doesn't have a darn thing to do with comments about an imminent attack on Iran.

2144 is astute, though I suggest you're taking a longer view, when it comes to the implications of campaign tactics, than must candidates tend to do.

This is not at all unlikely.

Both Dems are sharp enough to know they can't start hedging much at all with plans for withdrawal without getting clobbered, and both are sharp enough to know the electorate is pretty forgiving, as long as you're right.

I have to disagree with you here -- they won't get clobbered if they hedge, as long as they hedge smart. Really hard-core out-of-Iraq-now votes might stay home, but I submit that the vast majority of those voters are in "safe" blue states anyway. It is of course an open question whether they want to hedge. But I assume that all politicians do, habitually. They for-sure will if scenario A obtains or if it isn't clear whether it's A or B. If it's B, they have little reason to.

It may look bad in hindsight, but if there is indeed a human catastrophe, it will likely be far from clear where the fault lies.

That's true, and something that I meant to bring out more explicitly. A case could be made that the catastrophe should still be laid at the Republicans' doorstep -- I just don't think it will be, because the media loves a straightforward narrative, and "Democrats withdrew, millions died" is a lot easier to soundbite.

I might expect less hedging if I believed that either candidate was genuinely committed to the anti-war position, rather than embracing it because it's good politics. Then again, my attitude toward politicians is best described as bloody-mindedly cynical.

I like baseball.

If you're going to do so, how about this one:

That was what I was referring to with "the unsupported assumption that an attack on Iran will be partly nuclear". I think that's a deeply wacky notion -- and the idea that it could be covered up by claiming it was Iranian nukes is at odds with the admittedly small amount I know about nuclear weapons identification -- but it's not really about the question of whether Bush is preparing to attack Iran. So I didn't think it was really relevant.

I can't speak for the wackiest of libertarians -- that's really far out -- but of course it could be handled under breach of contract. The problem for the Naderite/trial lawyer crowd is that you can't get millions of dollars in punitives out of a breach of contract case.

It's not worthwhile for many individual consumers to file suit, and the same people who oppose government regulation also (conveniently) tend oppose to oppose class action suits.

It's not worthwhile for many individual consumers to file suit, and the same people who oppose government regulation also (conveniently) tend oppose to oppose class action suits.

I'm very active in the tort reform movement, and I don't know anybody who "opposes class action suits." What we oppose is lawyer-driven class action suits that exist solely for attorneys to make money by bringing actions about issues that consumers don't even care about.

In any case, if "loser pays" were enacted, as I prefer, it would be worthwhile to file suit.

That was what I was referring to with "the unsupported assumption that an attack on Iran will be partly nuclear". I think that's a deeply wacky notion

Yes, but the point I was making is that it has to be wrong, if the report they themselves cite is correct, because that's based on a weapon that doesn't even exist.

I'm very active in the tort reform movement, and I don't know anybody who "opposes class action suits."

Sorry. Would it be more accurate to say you want to reduce the number of classes that would be recognized, reduce the sizes of classes, reduce the incentives for lawyers to file suits, and reduce or eliminate venues that are friendlier to class actions?

In any case, if "loser pays" were enacted, as I prefer, it would be worthwhile to file suit.

Not really. If one accurately assesses her chances of winning to be 80%, it's still not worthwhile for many people to risk having to pay both their own lawyers and the corporation's lawyers.

It's not worthwhile for many individual consumers to file suit, and the same people who oppose government regulation also (conveniently) tend oppose to oppose class action suits.

A nice point, that also happens to support my sense that a true libertarian would have to oppose not only the creation of privileged classes such as corporations, but oppose as well a class such as "lawyers" whose privileges are protected by the state.

I find it plausible that Bush could be planning an attack on Iran. I find it plausible that Bush could even intend to launch an attack on Iran. I just don't see a whole lot here that's convincing on the matter.

Which probably goes to the point that it is far simpler to predict what an enemy might do, as against predicting the exact likelihood that he'll do it. So, I suppose, since marching in the streets is useless with this president, stiffening the spine of Biden and anyone else who promises to immediately push articles of impeachment against Bush if he strikes Iran without Congress's approval, is the way to go. Edit: I'm not assuming you agree with me, btw.

I might expect less hedging if I believed that either candidate was genuinely committed to the anti-war position, rather than embracing it because it's good politics. Then again, my attitude toward politicians is best described as bloody-mindedly cynical.

I defer to few in my cynicism for politicians, but Obama's opposition feels legit to me. His disinclination to do more against the occupation since he got to the Senate, on the other hand, feels calculated and cowardly.

A nice point, that also happens to support my sense that a true libertarian would have to oppose not only the creation of privileged classes such as corporations, but oppose as well a class such as "lawyers" whose privileges are protected by the state.

No matter how many times Arkitekton says it, corporations are not a "privileged class." But in fact, we do oppose the latter. We oppose all professional licensing as a form of economic protectionism.

So, I suppose, since marching in the streets is useless with this president, stiffening the spine of Biden and anyone else who promises to immediately push articles of impeachment against Bush if he strikes Iran without Congress's approval, is the way to go. Edit: I'm not assuming you agree with me, btw.

Assuming for the sake of argument that I do, threatening impeachment still seems like a waste of time. Are there 67 votes for conviction? I doubt it, and if not, it's unlikely to dissuade Bush. After all, they impeached Clinton, right? Just part of politics these days.

Since Iran was brought up, I thought i'd mention how ridiculous it is that Hillary thinks we should promise to nuke a nation that doesn't have nuclear weapons if they use their not yet existing nukes against a nation that has plenty of nukes of its own. This is the type of thing that she should be hammered on, but Obama can't go after her on it because it'll end up with stories about him being anti-Israel.

Assuming for the sake of argument that I do, threatening impeachment still seems like a waste of time. Are there 67 votes for conviction? I doubt it, and if not, it's unlikely to dissuade Bush. After all, they impeached Clinton, right? Just part of politics these days.

Understood, but I'll seize on your use of "unlikely". I'm for anything that improves the odds of not going to war with Iran, even if by only a little. A consensus on impeachment, at least among Dems, might get through, if not to Bush, to Gates or Rice, or even Petraeus, as he may have thoughts of political office.

Since Iran was brought up, I thought i'd mention how ridiculous it is that Hillary thinks we should promise to nuke a nation that doesn't have nuclear weapons if they use their not yet existing nukes against a nation that has plenty of nukes of its own. This is the type of thing that she should be hammered on, but Obama can't go after her on it because it'll end up with stories about him being anti-Israel.

It's grotesque. She should be getting hammered for this, and it shouldn't be up to Obama to have to do it.

I'm for anything that improves the odds of not going to war with Iran, even if by only a little.

Try economic pressure. If a big enough chunk of Big Business thinks that invading Iran would be a disaster for their bottom lines, that's likely to do as much or more to dissuade Bush as any sort of political pressure.

Since Iran was brought up, I thought i'd mention how ridiculous it is that Hillary thinks we should promise to nuke a nation that doesn't have nuclear weapons if they use their not yet existing nukes against a nation that has plenty of nukes of its own. This is the type of thing that she should be hammered on, but Obama can't go after her on it because it'll end up with stories about him being anti-Israel.

When exactly did Clinton say this? She said she would attack Iran if they nuked Israel, and Obama has said the same thing. She said the US "would be able to totally obliterate them," which isn't much different than Obama leaving the nuclear option on the table in preventing Iran from even obtaining nuclear weapons.

You may wish Obama was less pro-Israel than he is, but he hasn't been any less vocal in his total support for Israel than Clinton.

More chilling stuff about some of our deranged administration's recent moves:

Is an Attack on Iran Imminent?

I'll believe an attack on Iran is imminent when Tampa Bay Devil Rays move into first place.

What's that? Oh....

When exactly did Clinton say this? She said she would attack Iran if they nuked Israel, and Obama has said the same thing. She said the US "would be able to totally obliterate them," which isn't much different than Obama leaving the nuclear option on the table in preventing Iran from even obtaining nuclear weapons.

Clinton warns Iran of U.S. nuclear response

In the interview Monday, Clinton affirmed that she would warn Iran’s leaders that “their use of nuclear weapons against Israel would provoke a nuclear response from the United States.”

QUESTION: …Does massive retaliation mean you would go into Iran, you would bomb Iran? Is that what that’s supposed to suggest?

CLINTON: Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be. And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that, because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because at whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program, in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel we would be able to totally obliterate them. That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish and tragic.

From: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/22/932411.aspx

Thanks, Chip, I missed that.

Since Iran was brought up, I thought i'd mention how ridiculous it is that Hillary thinks we should promise to nuke a nation that doesn't have nuclear weapons if they use their not yet existing nukes against a nation that has plenty of nukes of its own. This is the type of thing that she should be hammered on, but Obama can't go after her on it because it'll end up with stories about him being anti-Israel.

Okay, fill in the blank. She "should be hammered on" this because _________.
(a) We shouldn't support Israel.
(b) It's bad to threaten the use of nuclear weapons in retaliation for the use of nuclear weapons.
(c) It's bad to say hostile things towards Iran because it will encourage Bushitler to attack Iran.
(d) We should wait until after Iran has nuclear weapons to warn them what will happen if they use them.
(e) All the problems of the world are caused by the U.S.'s failure to send candy and flowers to our enemies, and if we would just say nice things, everyone, including Iran, would be our friend.
(f) Isolationism is the best policy.
(g) ?
I mean, I understand the value of strategic ambiguity, but the offensive use of nuclear weapons is pretty well understood to be a red line.

Sorry. Would it be more accurate to say you want to reduce the number of classes that would be recognized, reduce the sizes of classes, reduce the incentives for lawyers to file suits, and reduce or eliminate venues that are friendlier to class actions?

We want to reduce class actions that are filed solely for the benefit of lawyers, lawsuits that drive up costs to the public without any concomitant benefit to that public. No different than any other unjustified lawsuits in terms of our goals; the issues are different, because class action lawsuits inherently pose trickier incentive problems because they're almost always driven by lawyers rather than actual clients.

Public Citizen -- an organization which represents approximately the antithesis of the tort reform movement -- is often allied with tort reformers on class action complaints, because of certain abuses which are common thanks to the procedural peculiarities of class actions. Public Citizen certainly has no objection to costly lawsuits, but often agrees that certain class action suits benefit lawyers at the expense of their ostensible clients. (E.g., coupon settlements.)

Okay, fill in the blank. She "should be hammered on" this because _________.

1. Israel has it's own nuclear deterrant, so they don't even need us to retaliate against Iran.

2. It's confrontational at a time when we are trying to use diplomacy to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons.

3. It indicates a cold war type mentality relating to Iran, and is another cold war really what we want?

4. It pisses off foreign countries when we need to be more conciliatory (See this article: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/04/iran-hillarys-t.html)

5. It's absolutely ####### useless. All it does is scare and/or piss off Iran without doing anything to improve the safety of ourselves or Israel. It's tough guy talk for no reason, and it echo's Bush's "Bring them on" as well as Condi's more recent remark all but calling Sadr a coward. It just isn't what we need at a time when we desperately need diplomacy.

Hasn't the Left been warning us of an "imminent" Bush attack on Iran for over 3 years?

Second nycfan...doesn't it kind of go without saying that any country that uses nuclear weapons against another country will be targeted by countries with nuclear weapons? The fear today isn't of states using nuclear weapons, but of states having them as leverage to not be the target of non-nuclear attacks. The realistic fear of nuclear attacks is from non-state entities who have no population to retaliate against. Hillary's statement I thought was a calculated attempt to make herself appealing to those who want a tough-talking, hawkish president, and she's showing she can hang with McCain in that respect. IMO, any time any population hears a leader of a nuclear nation talking about using that nuclear arsenal against them, it has to fuel paranoid and negative emotions about that nation. What Hillary said actually isn't that bad compared to what right-wing hawks have been saying about Iran on CNN/Fox/MSNBC for years, advocating a preemptive nuclear strike. Given the track record of US intelligence going into Iraq, US hawks advocating nuclear strikes based on what we think are nuclear weapons facilities look batshit crazy when viewed from any non-US perspective...and thanks to Our Fearless Leader we simply don't have the credibility after ####### Iraq up so bad to pursue peace through intimidation and threats of force....

Hasn't the Left been warning us of an "imminent" Bush attack on Iran for over 3 years?

Pretty close to that I think. It started with an article by Sy Hersch quite a ways back.

Say, did anyone catch Jeremiah Wright unplugged? Wow. Keep going around the country talking, "Reverend", you're going to be a gift that keeps on giving.

Say, did anyone catch Jeremiah Wright unplugged?

Not that you care, but I saw him on Bill Moyers' Journal. I didn't see the the stuff from today.

So I guess that would be (e)? Enemies of the U.S. would be agreeable if we would just say really nice things to them? Otherwise, I don't get your repeated invocation of "diplomacy." The threat of force (though not the use of force) is "using diplomacy."

Incidentally, let's not forget that Jacques Chirac also threatened to nuke Iran -- and he didn't even limit it to nuclear retaliation; he suggested that a terrorist attack sponsored by Iran could be sufficient. (Although that could have been a miscommunication; maybe he only meant an actual nuclear attack. Regardless.) I guess Hillary shouldn't be taking lessons from the French.

As for a "cold war mentality," I don't know what you mean by "Is a cold war what we want?" First you complain about the possibility of a hot war, and now you complain about the possibility of a cold one. People opposed to war against Iraq said it was unnecessary because "containment" was working -- but now you're saying cold war is bad?

I think I've found the source for all these anti-Obama posts here. This is taken verbatim from a Post story today about voter registration in North Carolina. I especially love this character's views on immigration combined with his memories of his German father, who himself jumped off the boat illegally, but was allowed stay here (AMNESTY!!! AMNESTY!!!!) while he went through the legal process of obtaining citizenship.

Al Landsberg, 66, approached the counter of the voter registration office at 4 p.m., an hour before deadline. Hefty, with a hint of sweat on his white mustache, he looked as drained as the employees behind the counter who rested their heads in their hands. Voting exhausted him. Ever since he cast a ballot for Ronald Reagan, Landsberg has always felt as though he was trying to choose the lesser of two evils.

For this election, though, he decided he had no choice but to vote. A lifelong Republican, he planned to switch his party affiliation so he could vote in the Democratic primary. That Hillary Clinton wasn't great, he said, but she was just as good as presumptive GOP nominee John McCain and a heck of a lot better than that other guy, "you know, uh, Embowa. He'd take this country right down the tubes."

Landsberg's wife, Evelyn, collects porcelain dolls, and her co-collectors send the Landsbergs frequent political e-mails, most of them critical of Obama. "From what I can tell, if he becomes president he will refuse to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and we will leave Iraq unprepared," Landsberg said. "I'm not going to sit at home and let that happen."

He needed something to do, anyway. He recently retired after five-plus years in the Marine Corps and 40 years in the printing business, and Evelyn still works at an electrical supplier. Their three children moved out long ago. The Landsbergs save what extra money they have for three or four annual trips to Las Vegas, where they can find a cheap hotel room, play the dollar slots and smoke -- indoors and in peace.

They never travel outside the United States, save the occasional Caribbean cruise. "Anything you want to see, you can see it right here," Evelyn said. Plus, they prefer to spend their tourist money at home, just as they buy only American-made cars. Not enough people look out for America these days, Landsberg said.

Like McCain, with his free-and-easy stance on immigration, which seems almost identical to Clinton's. Landsberg's father had come from Germany, first jumping ship illegally and then, after a few years and some English classes, through Ellis Island. He met Landsberg's mother during the legal immigration process.

"Anybody who came here illegally should have to leave, and I mean now," Landsberg said. "If McCain's not offering me that, I don't really see what he's offering. A vote for Clinton at least means you vote against Embowa, instead of voting for McCain, which is a vote against nobody."

Hasn't the Left been warning us of an "imminent" Bush attack on Iran for over 3 years?

You're behind on Bush's Secret Plans - the current one is that Bush is going to launch an attack right before inauguration, no doubt so he can declare the war against Iran to be too important for him to relinquish the office of the presidency.

You're behind on Bush's Secret Plans - the current one is that Bush is going to launch an attack right before inauguration, no doubt so he can declare the war against Iran to be too important for him to relinquish the office of the presidency.

That's one of the milder theories, go ahead and read the comments from that CommonDreams.org article. Apparently, once we nuke Iran (which is already a plan that pretty much everyone agrees is going to happen very soon), China and North Korea will nuke South Korea, Israel will nuke Lebanon and Syria, and for some odd reason, the USA is going to be nuked by the Ukraine.

Not that you care, but I saw him on Bill Moyers' Journal. I didn't see the the stuff from today.

Yeah. Wright claimed he was "taken out of context." As if there is proper "context" for saying that we brought 911 on ourselves and such.

But wait. Wright goes on to explain the "proper context"... and ends up saying exactly what we all thought he was saying in the first place:

"Jesus said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you. Those are biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic principles," he said.

The he said, in effect, that Obama isn't being honest in distancing himself from some of Wright's remarks -- that Obama is just doing so for political reasons:

Wright shot back the notion that Obama has walked away from him, saying the candidate "distanced himself from some of my remarks. ... He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was un-American."

Note the part about "from what the media was saying I had said." As if the media made it up.

By the way, I note that Chris Wallace asked Obama yet again to address Wright's specific statements, and Obama refused to do it. Well, he didn't "refuse"; instead he pretended that Wright's "controversial remarks" had to do with speaking out on slavery and telling fathers to take responsibility for their children. As if those were the comments that people were upset about. Quoting now:

WALLACE: By the way, in your speech on race, you said that while you hadn't heard these remarks that have been public, that you had heard controversial remarks from the pulpit.

OBAMA: Right.

WALLACE: But you've never said what those were.

OBAMA: Well, you know, I didn't have any particular examples.

WALLACE: I mean, can you tell us anything you heard him say that was...

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that he has oftentimes talked about some of the problems in the black community in very controversial ways. I mean, I think — or in sharp ways, in ways that are provocative.

You know, he will talk about the failure of fathers to look after their children in ways that sometimes people might be taken aback by. He can use street vernacular in his sermons in ways that people wouldn't expect to hear in church.

WALLACE: But did he ever say anything about America or about white racism that troubled you?

OBAMA: Well, I think that, you know, he has certainly preached in the past when I was there about the history of race in this country in very blunt terms, talking about slavery, talking about Jim Crow.

The problem — and I pointed this out in my speech in Philadelphia — where oftentimes he would err, I think, is in only cataloging the bad of America and not doing enough to lift up the good.

And that's probably where he and I have the biggest difference, but some of...

Ray,

Did you watch the Moyers interview, or not?

Some other stuff from Obama's FOX News appearance, related to the thread:

OBAMA: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

WALLACE: Such as?

OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation. I think that back in the '60s and '70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down command and control, we're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And you know, I think that the Republican Party and people who thought about the markets came up with the notion that, "You know what? If you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives, for businesses — let them figure out how they're going to, for example, reduce pollution," and a cap and trade system, for example is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

I think that on issues of education, I've been very clear about the fact — and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this — that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers that...

WALLACE: You mean merit pay?

OBAMA: Well, merit pay, the way it's been designed, I think, is based on just a single standardized test — I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming into school already three years or four years behind.

But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, "You know what? Teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally — that we should pay excellence more." I think that's a good idea, so...

***



Obama and Wallace--transcript.

Ray,

Did you watch the Moyers interview, or not?

No. I only saw preview clips - because that was all that was available before interview aired. I'm actually not sure when the interview aired.

No. I only saw preview clips - because that was all that was available pre-interview. I'm actually not sure when the interview aired.

Fair enough. It was on Friday night, and I taped it and watched it Sat AM.

As for a "cold war mentality," I don't know what you mean by "Is a cold war what we want?" First you complain about the possibility of a hot war, and now you complain about the possibility of a cold one. People opposed to war against Iraq said it was unnecessary because "containment" was working -- but now you're saying cold war is bad?

I was obviously referring specifically to THE Cold War rather than generally A cold war. The Neo-cons pretty much think we should treat Iran like we treated the Soviet Union for 40 years even though Iran isn't even close to that powerful. Iran's power and influence has increased exponentially since we made them a member of the "axis of evil" and adopted our current stand-offish policy towards them, so maybe we should try something else.

So I guess that would be (e)? Enemies of the U.S. would be agreeable if we would just say really nice things to them?

Gee, that's not a strawman. Tell me, what exactly does Hillary (or any public official) saying that accomplish? Do you think Iran doesn't know it would face massive retaliation if it used a nuke on Israel? Israel itself probably has enough nukes to destroy most of Iran without our help.

2168 covers it. Well done. As a follow to 5., how about 6., If Clinton is elected her statement does nothing to undermine Iranian pols/religious figures who also prosper using a bellicose stance, and who favor a posture of nonnegotiation with the Great Satan.

Fair enough. It was on Friday night, and I taped it and watched it Sat AM.

RR, was there anything from the interview you found particularly noteworthy in light of the discussions here?

Actually, my last post was completely wrong. Neo-cons are actually advocating a far more extreme position towards Iran than our position towards the Soviet Union during the cold war.

Apparently, once we nuke Iran (which is already a plan that pretty much everyone agrees is going to happen very soon), China and North Korea will nuke South Korea, Israel will nuke Lebanon and Syria, and for some odd reason, the USA is going to be nuked by the Ukraine.

In an odd sort of way, I find these theories comforting. That people are worried that the U.S. might nuke someone means that people believe the U.S. is willing and able to use nuclear weapons, and that means that they're still an effective deterrent. The prospect of a time when everyone considers U.S. use of nuclear arms to be unthinkable is a deeply troubling one.

Of course, the reverse is also true: the prospect of a time when everyone considers it to be inevitable is also pretty damned frightening. But as long as we're in the middle ground I feel somewhat reassured.

Actually, my last post was completely wrong. Neo-cons are actually advocating a far more extreme position towards Iran than our position towards the Soviet Union during the cold war.

Well, they advocated a stronger position towards the Soviet Union during the cold war, too.

The part (it may have been from the Q and A) where Wright said if God wants Mr. Obama to win the presidency, no ... white racist ... is going to thwart God's will, was just peachy.

Great. The Invisible Man is going to pick the president.
That's worked out so well.

ah--the clip of Wright mocking JFK is bound to go over well. If I'm Obama I now throw Wright under the bus, then make sure the bus backs up, goes forward, backs up....

What was Wright getting at re Kennedy? I didn't understand the point.

What was Wright getting at re Kennedy? I didn't understand the point.

He was mocking Kennedy's Bahstahn accent, JC, claiming that if a black child spoke like that he'd be remanded to remedial education (or something like that--I've lost the link). "Ehsk not what you can do for your country", Wright repeated several times.

What was Wright getting at re Kennedy? I didn't understand the point.

He was drawing a comparison between distinctive local and regional accents ("Paahk the caah in Haavahd Yaahd") to the street vernacular used by many African-Americans (especially when they're talking to each other), and implying that they're essentially the same thing.

Amongst the many wacky ideas espoused by Wright in his big coming-out tour, probably the most insidious and dangerous one of all is this notion he is espousing of the "black church". There is no such thing as the black church, any more than there is any such thing as the "white church".

There are obviously churches with predominantly black congregations all over America, but the majority of them do not subscribe to Cone's radical Black Liberation Theology, not even close. Only somewhere around ten percent of predominantly black churches are of this nature, and it's terribly wrong to give whites the false notion that the black churches are all as bitter and hateful as his church is, because it just isn't true.

I only read the transcript, so didn't quite get that. Is there a link?

From Political Punch:

After jokingly mocking the Boston accents of former Presidents John F. and Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., Wright said, "nobody says to a Kennedy, 'You speak bad English,' only to a black child was that said."
Wright said that he believes "a change is going to come, 'cause many of us are committed to change how we see others who are different."

This is the NAACP Speech; not sure if the link works:


NAACP Speech

It was the NAACP speech: http://www.hiphopmusic.com/2008/04/rev_wright_naacp_speech_video.html

While I was looking for it I found Wright's measured, very interesting (at least, the first half is. I haven't listened to the second half yet) speech to the National Press Club:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24352502#24352502

RR, was there anything from the interview you found particularly noteworthy in light of the discussions here?

Ray,

I'll try to answer this later, when I have more time. My short answer is "not specifically" but people who are going to make a huge deal about Wright should try to get the whole picture.

Meantime, here is some stuff on the 9/11 sermon. It is on Anderson Cooper's web site, done by another CNN guy, Roland S. Martin. I am not sure where those guys are politically, or how they are seen on the right:

9/11 SERMON--ANALYSIS


In the Moyers interview, Wright talked about Martin S. Mardy, a prof who affected Wright profoundly. Here is Mardy (a friend of his--biases conceded) on Wright:

Dr. Mardy on Wright

Actually, that logic doesn't work, because it fails to factor in that in the sort of cases we're discussing, plaintiff's lawyers aren't hired for money; they're hired on contingency.

Nice catch David. People who can't pay up front only get charged double via contingency.

In any case, if "loser pays" were enacted, as I prefer, it would be worthwhile to file suit.

(and other anti-class action particulars)

So to summarize "it's OK if some corp screws you - you can hire a lawyer on contingency - but these rules are no good and just serve to put money in the pockets of laywers".

You were more elegant, though.

Going back to regulation - there have been a bunch of arguments regarding Ford and their crash tests, lobbying to reduce standards etc. Or what a horrific thing is is for the FAA to ground planes for inspection.

If there were no standards - why would you even do crash tests? If there was no FAA - there would be no standards to inspect planes against! What about all the studies done to determine (as David insists) Ford Pintos were no more dangerous than other contempory sub compacts?

The Q & A after Wright's National Press Club speech is fascinating. He gets asked the truly difficult questions. His replies are funny, direct, and seem extremely honest. And he has a wicked sense of humor. Agree or not, it's great stuff.

Wright's comment to which I referred in 2188 comes at the end of the Q & A. In context, and not as the sound bite where I first heard it, it doesn't sound antagonistic at all. My fault for accepting the sound bite at face value.

(e) All the problems of the world are caused by the U.S.'s failure to send candy and flowers to our enemies, and if we would just say nice things, everyone, including Iran, would be our friend.

It's all part of the calculus David. If it costs less money, and less human suffering and death to send candy and flowers, maybe it's not the worst idea.

It's crazy that we have not attempted to befriend Iran. As (90%) shi'a they are no friends of Al Quaida (omg, that is the first time I have ever typed that word). They are a reasonably modern and have elections, political parties... (compare: Saudi Arabia).

We don't even have formal diplomatic relations with Iran!

Now it's possible that this is all Iran's fault - that their "UN Street cred" comes from defying the US...

In any case, I don't think Iraq is going to get cleaned up with cooperation from Iran.

re: Wright on Obama

I particularly liked when Wright in numerous answers said that Obama "denounced' him becuase he's a politician and he's just doing and saying what politicians need to say. I though Obama was above politics as usual? Just crazy ole uncle Wright at it again...

I think if there is one thing that the Primary Season has taught us - that Obama IS a politician, and always has been. My Dad (ex-member of the People's Liberation Party, long time Jesse Jackson supporter, etc.) was even convinced that he's not going to lead us to the promised (Ultra Left Liberal) land.