Posts Made By: James Brown

Mike Strieber said:

Not sure if anyone had a chance to see Frontline on PBS the other night. The episode was titled "Obama's War". Before anyone blows a gasket they did one a few years ago titled "Bush's War". If you didn't see Obama’s War, I highly encourage you to if they repeat it. Certainly casts doubt as to what we're doing there. On the other hand it also shows just how good our military is. These young men displayed extreme courage and intelligence, and clearly showed signs of being combat-experienced professionals. Unfortunately it also showed young Americans being killed, incidents you rarely see in the news. One senior official there said "we could do everything right in Afghanistan and still lose". To be frank, I strongly supported our efforts in Afghanistan. I have of late (last couple years) begun to doubt our continued presence there. What we did in November of 2001 was right and done well. We took our eye off the ball and are now paying the price. I know there are inherent risks with just leaving but do those risks outweigh the risks associated with staying? I guess everyone will have their own opinion. I personally would hate to see us fighting in Afghanistan another 8 years, who knows how many Americans dead, and not being any closer to resolving anything there. While initially skeptical about Obama taking so much time to decide our path forward I now applaud his diligence. This is not an easy decision to make.

Just some commentary coming from a 27 year veteran, who has been accused of being a warmonger here, one who typically does not support Obama's policies, and most importantly...works everyday with the men and women fighting in both Afghanistan and Iraq. It just might be time to bring them home….from the longest war in American history.
Mike

Hi Mike:

Thanks for the great and well informed post. I like this forum the best when someone who actually has a legitimate basis for his opinion articulates a well reasoned opinion.

We all have expertise in something. Even Patrick B. who seems to be boycotting again, or maybe he has the flu...

In any case, I will catch the Frontline show ASAP.

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

What's this administration and the congress, led by John McCain, coming to? Instead of focusing on two wars, the economy and health care, they're trying to right a wrong that occurred in 1913?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/19/boxer.pardon/index.html
I mean if a couple of people in the White House can't contest what Fox news, of all people, have to say because they're taking their eyes off the ball in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the global economy when they do, then surely the White House and congress are guilty of doing the same on this one. I mean an entire resolution passed by both houses and sent to the president? Why wasn't Fox news consulted? We ought to have a congressional investigation to determine why priorities aren't being set with the resources available. How much money was spent on this resolution and how much time was allocated to its content? And just look at all that time and effort they've misdirected towards Fox news...

I'm not sure I get your point Rod. The "war" against Fox is silly and a waste of time. The administration has chosen a lose-lose position here as the liberal New York Times recently detailed. NPR had an excellent discussion this afternoon about how Agnew went toe-to-toe against the networks on behalf of Nixon and lost big time.

Sure the White House’s spat with Fox gives ammunition to the right for mockery. More importantly I think, this feud should give pause to the left. As Mike said earlier today, is this really the fight you want your candidate fighting at this point in time? Too many of these poor choices could cost the Ds in ’10 and ’12.

On the other hand, this pardon of Jack Johnson seems to be long overdue. It does not waste much time, I imagine that Obama can spend 5 minutes to right this wrong. What is the big deal? The staffers set it up and everyone looks good. With the Fox story, the staffers set it up and Obama looks bad. Apples and oranges.

Jim

david elosser said:

According to this poll most Americans now disagree with President Obama on key issues (it's a CNN poll, Rod ):
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/20/cnn-poll-half-the-country-disagrees-with-obama-on-issues/

Some interesting quotes:
"Obama continues to do poorly among senior citizens," says Holland. "Most Americans over the age of 65 disapprove of how he is handling his job as president."

This is a big problem for Democrats. Obama and the Democrats are so closely tied in agendas that I predict this could be a serious problem for them in the next few years.

The poll also suggests that two out of three Americans say Obama has the qualities a president should have, down 12 points from April - one indication the Nobel Peace Prize may not have helped him much in that regard.

I laughed when I read that. I can't believe CNN is admitting the truth about the Nobel Peace Prize, that its purpose was to boost his approval ratings!

"It's not surprising that Clinton tops Barack Obama on the favorable ratings," says [CNN Polling Director Keating] Holland. "Secretaries of State don't get blamed for economic problems or unpopular domestic policies, and they often don't get the same share of the blame as the commander-in-Chief for international slip-ups either."

Hmmm, so according to Mr Holland, President Obama is getting the blame after all.

David E

Interesting poll results.

Do you suppose Hillary Clinton will run against Obama in '12?

Obviously it is far too early to guess, but it is an interesting question.

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

Oh, and I can see from the article where all the hype is coming from on the dispute between the White House and Fox news: Karl Rove. Figures...

Hi Rod:

When I read your link it sure sounds like the AP is explicitly acknowledging that a genuine high-profile feud exists between the administration and Fox. In other words this is no self-serving fabricated story of Fox or Rove.

I have no doubt that Fox and Rove will gleefully capitalize on the administration's poor choice. But this story is too well documented in the regular press to just dismiss it as something ginned up by Fox and Rove. I think Obama ought to listen to Lamar Alexander. He has opened a lose-lose can 'o worms here.

Jim

Hi Luca:

Those are great images. We are getting pounded with snow, so I don't suppose I'll see the sun for a few days...

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

First, jobs:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/Stimulus_jobs_created/index.htm?postversion=2009103020
and
http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/30/news/economy/when_will_jobs_return/index.htm?postversion=2009103011
next the GDP:
http://money.cnn.com/video/fortune/2009/10/30/f_sl_recovery_illusion.fortune/
The latter being preceded by a commercial but worth the wait.
So, despite what such world authorities in the Astromart might have to say, it appears there's a lot of good coming from the stimulus with more to come...

Hi Rod:

The first two articles seem to contradict each other. I read a lengthy piece in the WSJ this morning that talks about how recovery from recession follows a pattern. First productivity and gross output increase, later jobs increase and later still pay increases. The first thing appears to be happening now. Net job increases are still in the future though.

The jobs "created or saved" figures being touted by the White House are really suspect. You recognize this I assume. These figures are from the questionnaires filled out by stimulus recipients, who presumably are motivated to paint as rosy a picture as is conscionable in order to get the most funds. The figures assume that every job created by a stimulus project is filled by the unemployed. This is obviously not the case, a lot of workers moved from job "A" to job “Stimulus” so the net gain to the employment pool is -0- in that case. Only in Washington would a lateral move from one job to another be reported as a job "gain." The jobs “created or saved numbers are flat-out indisputably contradicted by 9.8% unemployment.

In summary, the stimulus might have helped us get to the first step, productivity increase. I personally believe that much the same increase would have happened naturally without intervention, but we need not agree on that point. Job recovery will come later, it always does. I'm not sure why politicians can't resist painting transparently rosy pictures that ultimately undermine credibility. Obama could easily back off on the suspicious jobs "created or saved" numbers and focus on the fact that the indications of recovery are indisputable and here much earlier than many, including my good buddy Rod "this is going to be worse than the Great Depression" Kaufman thought possible a year ago.

Jim

Jerry Wise said:

Like many, I'm in a holding pattern until I get my EMail from AP on a 140, 160 or 1xx anything. My current scope is a TOA 150 and it does a fine job, both visual and DSLR photography. I'm moving from DSLR (or splitting my time anyway) to entry level CCD now that SBIG is coming out with the 8300. With the extremely rare nights of good seeing in this area I want to optimize every minute under the stars. I was looking at the TEC 160FL and TEC 160 wondering what the difference would be between the two and how they compare with the TOA 150. Discarding the 10mm difference would the TOA color correction approximate the 160 or 160FL? (The TOA 150 is $8,995, the TEC 160 is $8,800 and the TEC 160FL is $12,500.)

Hi Jerry:

My understanding is that the color correction of a TOA refractor is about as good as can be done. I would think that other than the 10mm aperture difference, the only reasons one might prefer a TEC 160 over a TOA 150 would be more mechanical than optical. These scopes have different weights, different focusers, different cool-down characteristics etc. I can’t imagine an imager being disappointed with either one.

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/11/flattailed-horned-lizard-gets-boost-from-arizona-judge.html
Hey if it stop urban sprawl and more light pollution, I'll take it!

Rod:

George Bush was president in 1993? That's news to me. Maybe you need to find a new whipping boy.

Also, according to the article, listing the lizard is going to impact solar energy development as much as anything else. My sympathies are definitely with the lizard versus more watered-lawn developments for you greedy and grubbing AZ and CA sprawlers. On the other hand I favor solar energy development for many reasons. These things are never black and white.

I would absolutely favor setting aside 100's of square miles of Lizard habitat if we could also ration the energy transmitted from the rest of the West to insatiable California.

Jim

Mark Norby said:

Heard of a man that works in a retail store that ran afoul of policy. Seems there was a female store manager visiting the store that he worked in, who volunteered, 4 times, that she was going to marry her female partner. It is legal to marry someone of the same gender in that state. After the 4 statements of intent, the young man volunteered to her that he didn't believe in same-gender marriage, based on his religious convictions. The next day he was terminated for "forcing his religious beliefs on another." Remember, now, she brought up the subject, 4 times, and he responded once. Who was "forcing beliefs upon another" here?

Hi Mark:

Your story piqued my curiosity. At first I have to admit that my "urban legend" alarms were tingling. But, I was able to quickly verify that the basic story is true. Not surprisingly there are two sides to this one. Was this fellow, Peter Vadala the victim of a stupidly PC personnel policy, or was he the victim of his own sanctimonious big mouth?

You be the judge:

Here are direct quotes Peter gave to Fox news. Since the source is Fox, I will assume that these are true and accurately reported

[COLOR="Blue"]"I found it offensive that she repeatedly brought it up," Vadala said. "By the fourth time she mentioned it, I felt God wanted me to express how I felt about the matter, so I did. But my tone was downright apologetic. I said, 'Regarding your homosexuality, I think that's bad stuff.'"

"I did say I regard that lifestyle as deviant, as in deviating from the norm, but I never, ever said to that to the [manager]," he said. "In general, I believe people don't want to hear about controversial issues like that in the workplace. They shouldn't have to."


"I see, like all real Christians, homosexuals as people who, like me, are sinners and need to be told the truth in a loving way," he said. "In this situation, I took issue with the behavior. I think it's lunacy to call that type of behavior marriage in any kind of form. I had to express that I'm intolerant of that behavior. It's a love-the-sinner, hate-the-sin kind of deal."

Vadala said he felt "intentionally goaded" by the manager to comment on her relationship.

"She knew how I felt about homosexuality," he said. "When you talk to someone about something like that, you want their support. She was kind of looking into my eyes for that social cue for me to say, 'I'm happy for you.' But I really couldn't feel happy for her."[/COLOR]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572862,00.html

Finally, here is a copy of the termination letter:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/gen/09d/vadala/Brookstone_letter.pdf

This story has made the round of both fundamentalist and gay blogs. Not surprisingly, the spin is a bit different depending on the site you read...

So, is this a case of vicious lesbian PC retaliation or simply the tale of a Christian big-mouth who felt compelled to proselytize on the job?

Only "you" can decide for sure.

Jim

Rod Kaufman said:

Showing patients without health insurance die:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-trauma-uninsured17-2009nov17,0,4308260.story
A whopping 80%.
I know, I know, it's just another political socialist piece of propaganda. Funny how they're all that way but what's the likes of Harvard, John Hopkins, Cambridge and others compared to your average conservative astromarter?...

This is the same old stuff Rod. The study itself denies any cause/affect correlation between uninsured trauma death and the lack of insurance.

I’m quite sure that an individual’s risk of trauma death is statistically higher if one is a gangster or hoodlum, and I don't think that providing insurance to that crowd is going to help much. The study said as much.

I'll also suggest that there is a correlation between poverty, too many Big Mac meals, too much TV, no exercise, no insurance and trauma death. The car wreck that hurts you might well kill an obese couch potato. I wonder whether providing insurance will help the poor couch potato. In summary, will insurance raise the overall healthiness of those inclined to be fat and lazy? Will insurance keep gangsters from knifing and shooting each other? Will insurance minimize domestic violence? I sure don’t see how 100% insurance coverage would affect the outcome of many trauma cases.

So, I am not sure why you are digging up these articles when there is not a shred of evidence that insuring these trauma victims would have made any difference. The debate over health insurance reform should be couched in terms of cost, the nature and extent services provided, system-wide efficiencies and such. Un-correlated data that merely notes a coincidence between certain demographic groups being uninsured and also more likely die from trauma are not that relevant.

Jim