finknottle

1. Do you think it is illegal or unconstitutional for an organization to define a term for their own purposes? Do you think they don't do that now? If, for example, DHHS wanted to study chronic drug abuse, they would be stymied in their desire until congress gave them an official definition through legislation? And you fancy yourself an opponent of waste in government, lol. 2. How does this give DHS anything? Some clowns go off and write a paper, filled with observations and recommendations nobody is obliged to act on. How does that empower DHS?

Puerto Rico has 4 million people and is heavily democratic. They had a turnout of 2 million people in 2004 to elect the govener and non-voting member of congress. The primary is open to anybody who did not already vote in the Republican primary held earlier. Given that this is perhaps the only time they have ever voted on anything meaningfull nationally, I can easily see turnout exceeding two million. And I think that a 25% spread is possible if not conservative. So a 500,000 net is reasonable. Lets break the rest of the contests down based on current polling. I had to guess at the turnout and party membership - the info is spotty. - Indiana: Most polls have Obama up 5%, some have Clinton by 10%. I think its in play. Suppose Obama wins by 1%. In 2004 1 million voters participated in the primaries, figure half (?) are democrats, so figure that the democratic turnout will be 750,000 voters, so Obama nets 7,500. - North Carolina: April poll spreads, all in Obama's favor, are 25, 9, 11, 15, 20, 13, 21, 10, 23. Call it a 15 point win. I'm guessing a turnout of no more than 500,000, based on South Carolina's turnout. That gives Obama 75,000. - West Virginia: Clinton looks like a 25% winner at this point, and I'm guessing turnout at 180,000, putting about 45,000 Clinton's way. - Kentucky: Clinton looks like a 32% winner here, and I'm guessing turnout at about 400,000, putting 130,000 Clintons way. - Oregon: Only one poll, with Obama 10% ahead. I'm guessing turnout at 250,000, netting 25,000 for Obama. - Nebraska, Montana, South Dakota: who cares, the numbers are too low, and I can't be bothered to look it up. Call it a total swing of 20,000 in Obama's favor. Adding these numbers, we see Clinton closing by 50,000 going into Puerto Rico, down by 550,000. But suppose she does a little better than expected and pulls a minor upset or two - Wins Indiana by 8% - 60,000 to Clinton Loses NC by only 10% - 50,000 to Obama Wins WV by 25% - 45,000 to Clinton Wins KY by 32% - 130,000 to Clinton Loses OR by 10% - 25,000 to Obama Loses rest: - 20,000 to Obama Wins PR by 30% - 600,000 to Clinton That comes to about 130,000 in Clintons favor

He can get less than Uncommitted did, which was where he and Edwards instructed their supporters to vote. Not true. In fact, I'm becoming confident that while he will have the delegate lead at the nomination, she will have the popular vote by a comfortable margin, *even in the accounting scenario most favorable to Obama.* Here's how it can play out. Obama gets a big win in NC, adding to his total. He has a big win in Montana/SD/whatever, but the number of voters is insignificant. He wins Oregon, but it's only by a few percentage points (mirroring the result in Washington). Indiana is essentially a draw, the winner winning by only a few points. Clinton gets big wins in Kentucky and WV. The totals are now pretty close. That leaves... Puerto Rico. I'm expecting a massive turnout of about 2 million people - how often do they have the opportunity to directly effect the political future of the US? And I think it very possible that Clinton wins by 25% - that nets her about 500,000. You add this stuff up, give Obama votes for the four caucuses who didn't report their totals, leave out MI and FL, and Clinton is still ahead by a few hundred thousand.

The position of his proxies (in Florida, anyway) was that the number of votes he received should be weighted towards his national percentages - close to splitting the pot, or no deal. They kept this in play by obstructing any plans for a revote. Obama should have let them go ahead and vote again. Old people really respond to messages of Change.

From the Man himself: The primary purpose of the bill is to set up a commission to write a whitepaper on the causes and prevention home-grown terrorism. It has no power other than the power to ask for testimony. The bill also authorizes the setting up of a university-based 'Center of Excellance' (there are about a zillion such centers) to study and produce academic reports on the problem. I would characterize it more as useless than dangerous, and Paul's response as suspiciously over-the-top. Ok, so they don't define "extremist belief system." Should a bill initiating the investigation of whether climate change is occuring define precisely what climate change is and is not? Should a bill authorizing a study on trends in organized international terrorism declare which groups they are allowed to consider terrorist and which they are not? Can there be no legislation authorizing a study of pornography, without a clear-cut and legally binding definition of thev term up front? These are things that should come out of a study, not be mandated upon it. And I have news for you - it is up to the government to define "extemist belief sysem" regardless of whether this committee is established. They only write a paper, they do not write legislation. But the debate over "extremist belief system" is a misdirection anyway - the bill already defines violent radicalization, homegrown terrorism, and ideologically-based violence. At what point should it stop defining terms and just get on with it? My only explanation for the rabid response to this essentially empty legislation is that the campaign against the bill was initiated by the John Birch Society, and Paul doesn't want to alienate the base.

According to the Paulites, home-grown terrorism is an impossibility, and even setting up a commission to study the question is a hard charge down the road to totalitarianism. And, for reasons that still remain unclear to me, government monitoring of the internet. (See HR 1955). So no, we'll never know what made him tick.

Forget the technical advantage. NASA ought to be funded for the foreign policy benefit. NASA remains the one institution in the US (or any other government for that matter) which is universally admired and respected around the world. Even in the most hardened anti-US places in the Middle-East, you mention NASA and the eyes light up and the smiles come out. It's acheivements have united people in spirit in a way that no political movement can ever hope to. But I'm sure that ensuring that every american pre-schooler has a full set of crayons will earn their admiration too.

Why is it his rightfull nomination again? The nomination doesn't go to the candidate with the most delegates heading into the convention - if they wanted it that way they would have made it that way. Instead, it goes to the first candidate to get 2,024 delegates to vote for them on a ballot (a simple majority). If nobody has majority support going into the convention, you need to pursuade people to change their minds. So by what right is Obama exempted from from having to get half the party behind him?

I do think that is very probable. Where the media has it wrong, IMO, is in painting it as a consequence of hardening emotions in the Clinton-Obama fight. It's not pique - many of them genuinly consider McCain closer to their positions than Obama. These are the Reagan Democrats, and it is foolish to assume that they would vote Obama even if he had an uncontentious coronation. From right to left it goes McCain-Clinton-Obama. If there is one thing the Clinton's know, it is where the political center is. That 52% of Clinton's supporters feel closer to McCain than Obama just goes to show their accuracy, lol. IMO the question is not whether they will support Obama in a general election (I'm thinking probably not), but rather would Clinton still hold them in an election against McCain (I thinking she generally would).

No, I think the Republican's are pretty much resigned to losing the Whitehouse in November - they aren't delusional. That's why fund-raising was so down in the primaries. I take it you believe that if - despite everything going for them - the democratic candidate loses the general election, it will be viewed as their own fault and in no significant shift in the party dynamics and alignment will result?

I was thinking about that too, but I think it is a less compelling question because it lacks the hardening emotions in the Clinton-Obama fight. If McCain wins, everybody is happy on the surface. The Guilaini's and Romney's rejoice in finally having been rid of the meddlesome priest that is the ideological right (both religious and talk radio). But if McCain loses, I think the right gets reinvigorated - they can lay the blame on McCain not being sufficiently conservative. Being out of power and ideological purges go hand-in-hand. But somehow I don't think this means defections.

Sorry to step on partisan toes! And it's not intended to be an argument for Clinton. I'm just speculating on how the blame-game goes within the party if the nominated candidate loses the general election - I should have realized that including Obama in such a scenario would be interperated by his supporters and the media as an unfair, politics-as-usual attack. Your "thoughts" have nothing to do with the question. If it makes you more comfortable, let's assume it is impossible for Obama to lose the general election and instead focus only on Clinton. If somehow she is given the nomination at the convention and goes on to lose, what happens within the party? Will it be shrugged off like the last few losses, or bring about a shift in party strategy?

Nah. Chomsky-style academics.

Hypothetical question: It will be stunning if the Democrats manage to lose this election - they have absolutely everything in there favor. And yet... Suppose they manage to blow it. What happens to the party afterwards? I'm thinking it depends on the candidate. If Clinton gets the nomination and loses, it will be the usual sort of recriminations: she was too divisive, the democrats have bad luck, we'll get it next time. Maybe the lesson is you don't tick off an important constituincy (the african-american vote), and you work harder to register the hispanic vote. In other words, same as the last few elections, no real change in course. But if Obama gets the nomination and loses, it would likely be due to the defection of the moderate and conservative Clinton supporters. The perceived shift to the left could signal to the remaining moderates there's no future to the Democratic Party - they may see it's loss as the inevitable result of being taken over by a narrow alliance of intellectuals and minorities not interested in representing mainstream values. It could spell the end of the party, bringing to finality the trend started in the 70's. Thoughts?

Most people in this country do not go into the sciences and engineering without inspiration. In fact, they don't do anything hard. Look at the pendulum between med school and law school applications - it pretty much tracks the appearance of shows like ER and LA Law. More education without inspiration = more communications and business BA's. I'll pass on that dividend.

On a related note, the only time I ever wrote a cranky-old-man letter it was to NASA, blasting their risk-aversion, back when Golden was having a hissy fit over commercial passengers in space and doing everything he could to block it. I think I used the line "What if Ferdinand and Isabella cancelled the Columbus voyage because the sure loss of some sailors lives would be unacceptable?"

I don't understand the outrage. Do you believe that only the Pentagon woo's the news analysts, and coaches the friendliest on what to say? You do realize that other parts of the government do it too, as well as other governments, and that is nothing compared to what industry does. If you want an exercise in futility, try determining what consulting contracts an average op-ed writer (left or right) has. And let's not forget the political candidates - they woo the analysts and reporters with special trips and briefings, providing target talking points and attacks.

I've heard the same complaints from the creationists.

Not much attention has been given to the visions the candidates have for space. Clinton had her policies out early, and Obama eventually came out with one. It's interesting in that he seems to view manned initiatives as not worth the money, and in fact will shift a large part of NASA's funding to the Dept of Education pay for the first year of his pre-kindergarten initiative. The development of the space shuttle replacement, the 2020 mission to Mars, and the return to the moon will all be placed on 'hold.' Here's a compilation for those interested in the topic. Comments? http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1028/1 http://mwvastronomy.com/blog/?p=5 http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5...ace_policy.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6...bama_their.html

Because during the Eocene they both featured heavy rain on their plains.

Case in point: global warming will lead to localized global cooling. The last time the north pole melted (about 5 million yeas ago) it led to freezing temperatures in Europe. It has to do with the mid-atlantic conveyer belt. Right now, warm salty water from the gulf stream glides along to Europe keeping it warmer than it's latitude would dictate. But salt water is heavier than fresh water, and when the two meet the former is driven down to the ocean floor and dispersed. As the north pole ice pack melts, it creates a steadily encroaching bank of less salty water which will in time act as a break on the conveyer belt and disrupt it before it ever gets to Europe. Long-term outlook: Spain will be more like Maine in temperature, France like Newfoundland, and England like the Hudson Bay. It's happened before. Sell off your beach-front villas and your stock in Spanish olive oil companies.

Interesting article on the Obama and Clinton supporters. The gist of it is that there is a much stronger correlation between academic enclaves and so-called 'Jacksonians' than between black and white. You may want to jump past the state-by-state analysis to get to the meat of the argument and what it means for the general election. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/barone/2008/4/...acksonians.html

Yes - current estimates of the ice-pack yield an increase of 80-100 meters. In fact, the buildup of glaciars on Antartica 40-30 million years ago was a major contributor to the lowering of sea levels that reconnected the land bridges between continents. Prior to that there was a sustained period of isolation in which life evolved in their own directions - for example, the common ancester to the carnivore family split into the dog side of the family in North America and the cat side in Asia. Then, bam! The ocean in the middle of the US turned into plains, the Bering shelf was exposed, the straits separating Europe and Asia dried up, and land-bridges started popping up between Africa and the rest; and all those species went at it tooth and nail and claw and hoof. Here's a map of the earth 94 million years ago which gives you an idea of what how things change over time. http://www.scotese.com/cretaceo.htm The sea-levels then were about 200 meters higher. The unusually high level is partly due to all the melted ice, partly due to they way the shelfs happened to be at the time (they were relatively young and shallow), but also partly do to another relevant factor: the volume occupied by water is also a function of temperature. While we are used to thinking about climate change in terms of surface temperature, most scientists focus on deep sea temperatures. Back then they were about 15 degrees higher, giving the water more volume.

Two flaws: He seems to assume that global warming will only occur if it is man-made. He aslo assumes that if it is man-made and that we fight it, we can stop it - personally, I am of the opinion that if mankind disappeared tomorrow, the inertia is such that the earth will still continue to warm until a new equilibriam is reached.

Yeah, nobody in politics ever embellishes. Amazing how people will jump all over one thing and ignore an identical one.