markov

@coolkraft -

You are right! Let's end this thread and be done with it!

@letmewinplees -

You are correct!

@conspiracy2riot -

Much of what you describe are legitimate policy differences which takes you about ten steps ahead of many in the knee-jerk "I can't stand her because she is on the other side and don't even know her policies" crowd. Kudos for at least that. I am a moderate leaning slightly left on environmental issues so I respect those concerns even if I am unwilling to go quite so far. I share your contempt for certain of those fundamentalist Christians who vie to shove their religion in our faces and push their interpretations of it into the realm of public policy. There is a holier-than-thou air to it I find distasteful. I must respectfully disagree with you on the RNC speech.

As to the balance of your comments:

The Troopergate thing: I am equally uncomfortable with the potential a personal vendetta existed AND the thought of a clearly unstable (dangerous?) state trooper maintaining authority of citizens. If this guy was as bad as evidence suggests he needed to be removed. As governor, if she knew this guy was a threat to those he was to serve and did nothing about it a fair charge of negligence could be made. This situation is a wash for me. On a side note, it is interesting the the media has applied the word "Troopergate" to this event given that the initial definition of Troopergate was applied to Bill Clinton as a result of allegations that he used state troopers in his bodyguard detail as governor of Arkansas troll for women for him. The whole Paula Jones fiasco centered around this.

Lies about earmarks and the bridge to nowhere: Without having her exact quotes in full context I cannot ascertain the validity of this accusation.

Women wanting to emulate her: I don't really know what to say about this. I don't know anyone who is following such a course of action. However, I can say this: She seems like a woman with whom I have a number of areas where I agree with her and other areas where I don't. Pretty typical for me with any politician. When it gets down to American voting these days this fits perfectly in the model of having to choose between the lesser of two evils. To me, she fits within that range and is no more worthy of contempt than the two jokers on the other side of the ticket.

@ Those who are PERSISTENTLY denigrating Sarah Palin:

I have been trying to ignore this thread as it has become a moot point for all intents and purposes, yet Hubdub will not allow me to stop tracking it and I keep getting e-mails with these pitiful, low-brow rants from Palin-Hating malcontents. A fairly large number of these comments clearly seek to simply degrade Sarah Palin on a personal level. Given that she has had no real opportunity to affect U.S. policy and has therefore had no opportunity to bring harm to anyone except perhaps in the state of Alaska, I find myself unable to ascertain any logical motives of those who spew their poisonous rhetoric upon her. It is clear that some of the comments made to this thread AFTER THE ELECTION indicate the authors truly despise the woman. No other reasonable inference could be made. So, a question...........

WHY DO YOU HATE SARAH PALIN?

Because YOU think she is dumb or can't get those petty left-wing talking points you've been spoon fed out of your mind are not good enough. Give us the real reason.

@valornhonor -

You comment: "Debate and the clash of ideas is both helpful and necessary in a Democracy, long live the debate! " To that I must add the caveat that it be INFORMED debate. In that regard, I have observed too many people who come unarmed to a gun fight only to grow angry and cast aspersions in lieu of logic as their personal lack of exposure to, and therefore lack of comprehension of, the details places them in the unenviable position of having to defend or promote policies in only the most superficial ways. The devil is always in the detail.

@valornhonor -

Exceedingly well written! I look forward to your definition of conservatism. Your definitions should allow for better discussion hereafter as the consequences of the ideologies can then be meaningfully reviewed in detail. To me, like many, Liberalism is not so much disdained for its high-minded aspirations so much as its inevitably deleterious consequences and ensuing misery. As a practical matter, Liberal policies when implemented, are impractical and nonfunctional for myriad and obvious reasons. The results are often diametrically opposed to the outcome sought.

It is interesting how "success" and "approval" are so often deemed to be one in the same. George Washington was highly unpopular throughout much of the Revolutionary War when events favored the British. His famous plea to his troops when he coined the phrase "Sunshine Soldiers" has withstood the test of time. Abraham Lincoln was nearly run out of office on several occasions as a result of decisions he made to preserve the Union and end slavery. There were bloody riots in New York upon his implementation of the draft. Furthermore, in his only little Gitmo way, he suspended the right of habeas corpus. Yet, posterity views these men favorably.

George Bush has made some mistakes. His toleration and participation in substantially expanding the size of government with his willing accomplices in Congress from both parties is unforgivable. His handling of the aftermath of the initial victory in Iraq and the disbanding of the Iraqi Army in its entirety were blunders of epic proportion. Yet, the vast majority of the slanderous campaign of misinformation directed against him by the power-seekers who manipulate their legions of imbeciles and malcontents, is grossly inaccurate and beyond cruel. The near total, obsessive hatred of the man by the liberals reflects more poorly on them than it does on him.

I do not hate Barack Obama. I do not think he is stupid from an IQ standpoint. However, I do thoroughly understand the major issues in this country and am of the opinion that his track record and stated policies bode ill for his presidency. This opinion is not based on talking points nor superficial explanations, both easily conjured to misdirect the ill-informed. Rather it is based upon the clarity of history and a firm understanding of the mechanics of capitalism. Therefore, to me, approval ratings are only worthy of respect when they are correctly given. Often, they are not.

George Bush didn't "botch" his job as president. He just didn't do as good of a job as he should have. I pray the same, at least, will be said of President Obama upon his departure.

@jsevigny: Her stated policies are superior to those of Obama's.

I couldn't care less about a politician's race or gender. I care about, and vote on, their positions on the issues and whether or not I feel they are more likely to make good on their promises. I've had a pit in my stomach since the election results became known as I know Obama will be Jimmy Carter on steroids. I abhor socialism and big government as I understand the deleterious consequences of both. Socialism and big government are not prerequisites to obtaining and maintaining an even playing field in the business environment. Congress, lead by both parties, is corrupt beyond recognition and has sold the soul of America to the special interests, both of business and non-business groups alike. Neither George Bush nor Bill Clinton are the causes of our problems. We, the fools who frequent the voting booths, persistently elect the men and women of questionable moral fiber who smile at us as they mouth platitudes as they guide our hands to our ankles. We are about to get what we paid for and we ain't gonna like it.

McCain is going to win. I say this not because I want him to and not because he is the lesser of two evils. I know I couldn't be more the odd man out on this but I've been crunching the numbers, studying the electoral count situations, factoring in a small amount of polling bias and incompetence, and, I must admit, speculating that a fairly large number of the 'undecideds' are going to break for McCain when they finally have to pull the trigger in the voting booth with their sweaty palms. The back-breaker for Obama will turn out to be the infamous 'Joe the Plumber' blunder. This election has been an absolutely horrific nightmare and I hope never to see such bitter divisions in this country again. I can't wait for this thing to just end. Two years of vigorous campaigning is just plain over the top.

PREPARE TO BE SHOCKED!

@valornhonor, your comment "t would be a good idea for high school students to be required to pass the same test that people take to be granted citizenship before getting their diplomas" is one that I have considered myself. I'll bet the new citizens have a far greater understanding of our government a large number of our fellow citizens. I cringe every time I see the "Jay-Walking" segment on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno. I imagine these folks taking leave of Jay's company and heading to the voting booth.

@mork - It appears our respectful disagreement must remain that, a respectful disagreement. However, I would ask this: Why does the Democratic party strive so vigorously to register inner city voters from the lowest economic status, with the worst school districts, and with the highest high school drop-out rate? Your comment suggests it would behoove the the Republicans to undertake such a venture. Additionally, I was clear to avoid defining ignorance solely as a lack of formal education level attained. It is but one predictive parameter of several.

My last post (#84) was little coarse in that it mentioned ONLY the Democratic party in its description of the manipulation of the ignorant. To be fair, and to clarify my position: The Republican party engages in such activities as well, albeit to a substantially lesser degree. My true indictment was directed toward irresponsible voters who stake out positions and vote on issues that they do not understand and toward those who seek to manipulate them to gain power. As mork accurately states: "To suggest that ignorance falls along party lines is not exactly enlightening" is, as a stand alone statement, correct. However, when the matter of degree is taken into consideration a fair assessment can be made.

kennyk accurately states: "Most are quite sincere in their beliefs". Of this I have no doubt. However, if we define "belief" as "absolute confidence in the truth or accuracy of something" we ignore the possibility that the belief itself may be inaccurate. Good, honest people often believe things that simply are not true. By true I mean quantifiable, predictive, and based upon either repeated actual observations with the same outcome or proven cause and effect.

If any solace may be given here to kennyk and dragonfangxl for their family political situations, I suffer in like manner. One of my in-laws is a lawyer who seems to almost always find himself on the wrong side of the truth in political conversation. He is a very smart guy but he falls under the category of 'intellectually lazy' as indicated in my previous post. He has no understanding of economics and he watches exclusively sports all of the time, leaving the news and other sources of cerebral edification to others. When political conversation comes up he has only one round in his clip, the ten second talking points his favored party feeds to him, and any conversation beyond his talking points moves quickly to the shrill. Why does this happen? It's simple, he's smart about most other things and he doesn't like feeling stupid by engaging in conversation about things that aren't in his 'database'. These subjects are not in his database because his interests didn't allow him the time to put them there. Nonetheless, he will vote.

I think it would be helpful here to categorize some beliefs, for all beliefs are not created equal. For example, if Mike believes the sun will rise over Chicago tomorrow and John believes it will not, it can hardly be said that Mike's and John's beliefs are of equal value. Clearly John's belief is of almost no value beyond his ability to utter it. However, other beliefs are no nearly so quantifiable and predictive and therefore may carry equal weight. If Mike says there is no God and John says there is it is exceedingly difficult to prove either right or wrong and therefore both beliefs could be considered to carry equal weight.

More mundane beliefs, that are predictive and quantifiable, can also hold near equal weight when viewed through the lenses of different life experiences and personalities. For example, the statement: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" can be evaluated with different criteria. It has been proven beyond doubt that adherence to this credo results in very poor economic results for the population as a whole. However, the bottom 1-2% of society may actually benefit from such a doctrine. If you look at this strictly from the perspective of the 1-2% of society that will benefit, and ignore the self-serving aspect of it, then their belief is founded in reality. However, if you look at it from the perspective of the other 98-99% of the people, the belief is not founded in reality. So, technically, both sides are correct relative to their position in society.

Finally, just to lend some insight into my own perspective on the two major parties in the U.S.:

The Republicans generally say the right things and hold the proper ideology to enhance the lives and welfare of the nation, all groups considered. However, what they say and what they do are two different things. When they took control of Congress in 1994 with some fresh blood they had a few good years of doing what they said they were going to do and the state of the nation improved. Unfortunately they ultimately became corrupted by the very Washington institutions they had promised to reform. A case and point: They promised to reduce the federal budget deficit and enact term limits. They did both at first. But within a few years they decided getting re-elected was more important than doing the right thing and they allowed the deficit to balloon once again. They paid for their errors in 2006 when they were voted out of the majority. And the term limits things? A congressman took issue with it, filed a lawsuit, and the law was overturned by the judiciary. Fresh blood and reform were back out in the street.

The Democrats generally say the wrong things and then actually follow through on many of them. This is worse than just doing nothing. Their solution to all problems is to throw money at the problems without any concern for the ramifications (secondary effects) and the fact that the money they are throwing around is other peoples' hard-earned dollars. An example of this would be a tax increase to, for example, extend unemployment benefits among other things. One of the ramifications to this is that the U.S., which has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, would experience job loss as manufacturers move their production facilities overseas. An example cited recently by John McCain is Ireland, which supposedly has an 11% corporate tax whereas ours is 35%. This gives Ireland an automatic 24% advantage even without further increases on our part. The companies could then lower their prices by some percentage, sell more goods, and hire more people. Unfortunately for the U.S., the end result is near total job loss for that company in the U.S. while Ireland sees a net increase in jobs AND that company would begin competing successfully with its U.S. based competitors, likely causing further job loss. As this thing plays out more people file for extended unemployment benefits, the cost of the program increases, and net tax revenues go down since fewer people are paying taxes. This results in a vicious circle of declining revenues and increasings costs. Needless to say, the deficit balloons and we can't tax our way out of it. Do you think they had this in mind when they raised the taxes? This leaves us to ponder whether or not they are evil, stupid, or a little of both.

The two primary areas where I see the most manipulation in politics today are in the categories of economics and civics (the mechanics of government. valornhonor probably summed up the root cause most succinctly when he stated : "I see a relationship with the scarcity of classes like "civics" in current curriculums and the generally anemic level of political conversation." To that I would add economics and we have probably hit 90% of the root cause for the folly in politics today. A mandate to not issue high school diplomas with a student attaining a 90% or better score on economics and civics finals would go a very long way toward disarming the silver-tongued devils in elected office. My undying hope is to see the dawn of a truly informed electorate.

You guys are on target (dragonfangxl, valornhonor, kasulked)! The Democratic party, generally speaking, prevails through the manipulation of ignorance. The uneducated, intellectually lazy, stupid, and emotionally disturbed vote with their hearts, exclusively, and not their minds. The foundation of reason, and thereby wisdom, is knowledge and understanding of detail and structure. In the absence of knowledge there is absence of understanding. In the absence of understanding there is absence of logic. When people lack the information necessary to form logical opinions, or the ability or effort to form them, they determine their actions by emotion alone. It is far easier to manipulate emotion than reason. Baseless passion seldom serves the greater good.

What I find so disheartening about the tenor of politics in the U.S. these days, a few of the words in the various forums serving as examples, is the near absolute ignorance of the details by many of the grassroots ideologues. Far too many people stake their heart to a particular political party and thereafter vigorously support that party's superficial political chantings no matter how baseless or ridiculous they may be. This, I believe, bespeaks a certain measure of intellectual laziness whereby the sloganeer, if you will, chooses the more simplistic approach of taking politicians' talking points at face value rather than adopting the more responsible, and albeit time- consuming, approach of insuring a personal comprehension of the issues before setting their stakes and beginning their advocacy of such issues they do not understand for lack of detailed exposure.

For example, it is not uncommon for Presidents to be held singularly responsible for economic downturns (i.e. Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush). This faulty interpretation of reality ignores the fact that it is Congress that has absolute control of government monies, both collected and spent, and the President is relegated only to the position of being able to say ‘yes' or ‘no' to the budget by way of the veto. Yet, Congress even has the power to override the veto and thereby nullify a President's fiscal influence. A President is therefore left only to suggest and cheerlead to pursue his purposes. Much the same can be said for governmental oversight. Additionally, free markets by their very nature are cyclical creatures that re-calibrate the efficient distribution of resources through oscillations between expansion and contraction. These undulations can be, and most often are, exacerbated by government fiscal policy which, again, falls squarely under the purview of Congress.

When such absence of understanding is applied across the breadth of issues the result can be catastrophic should the purveyors of such nonsense work their way into a majority at the voting booth. Furthermore, there is no justice in their hoisting themselves by their own petards as the sizeable minority of voters, who may have chosen wisely, find themselves damned to the same punishments that follow the witless decision of the majority under such circumstance.

I, for one, am more than happy to engage in spirited conversation with those of differing political opinion as long as they have a modicum of understanding of the recent history and mechanics of government and are not just throwing out the mindless talking points they've absorbed from their sovereign party. Otherwise, for lack of the necessary detail around which logical evaluation should occur, the conversation quickly devolves into an argument on par with one's perception of the weather on any given day. Unfortunately, though, unlike weather equivocations, political disagreements often end with anger and animosity. It is for this reason I strive to avoid arguing for or against issues I do not completely understand AND it is for this reason I am willing to change my mind when credible argument is made to lend me new perspective. Though I hope not, I fear I may be in the minority in this regard.

Markov

Good one, dragonfangsxl! LMAO.

Is this election a nightmare or what?

That would be cool.

@jhouseholder - This is a good idea and I think I'll up the ante. Add a check box next to each challenge and another that will let you check all open challenges. Put a DELETE button on the page to delete all challenges with checked boxes.

Here's why: I've got Toxic "Challenge Build-Up" because I've haven't been logging in often enough. I'll bet over half of my open challenges have already been settled. This makes it very time consuming to go through the entire list one by one to deal with things. I'm sure a lot of people just stop looking at their challenges when this happens. Something needs to be done about this.

How can you tell?

@pawnmowman - right on target!

@mrperfkt:

I'm not a code guru but I can suggest the single page interface look something like this:

NFL WEEKLY POOL FOR WEEK ENDING 9/29

9/28 - Bears vs. Eagles (Bears by 6)
Bears (check box)
Eagles (check box)

The page would include all of the games for the week and the user would fill out the entire ticket by just clicking the box next to every team they expected to win.

At the bottom of the page they would have two submission choices:

Wager H$10 per game (check box)
Wager H$ "Other" per game (enter amount)

AND

Wager H$10 per ticket (check box)
Wager H$ "Other" per ticket (enter amount)

The user could choose one or both. By choosing the 'wager per game' scenario they would be betting the same amount on each individual game and would get their wins minus losses at the end of the week. By choosing the 'wager by ticket' option they would get paid the amount they bet if the majority of their predictions were correct.

For example:

If they wager H$10 'by game' they would be betting H$10 on each of 16 games, effectively having H$160 riding on the pool. If they picked 10 right and 6 wrong they would be paid as follows: (H$10 (wagered) + H$10 (won)) X 10 (correct picks) - (H$10 (wagered) X 6 (incorrect picks) = total (H$140). If they tie it's a wash.

If they wager H$10 'by ticket' they would be betting H$10 total that they will predict the majority of games accurately. If they win they get their H$10 wager back + H$10 (won) = total H$20. If they tie it's a wash. If they fall short they lose.

By participating in the weekly NFL pool they will have to bet on ALL games and then choose one or both of the wagering options to submit their ticket.

Hopefully I've described this clearly and it is both practical and of interest.

- Markov

There are relatively credible sites that set point spreads (used by gamblers) for every football game each week. Those spreads could be used to set the ticket for each week's pool. Participants could then try to pick the winner of every NFL game each week and have their results posted when all games are completed. It would be set up as a 1-1 payoff in the spread based pool so wagers don't affect the odds. Ir would be far more difficult with a non-spread based pool as certain games would be almost a sure bet.

@pixelpaws - Interesting observation. I noticed the same thing going on between the "Palin win VP" and "McCain win Prez" markets where one almost certainly begets the other. This does not make much sense. I think there is one major factor at play in most of these cases and that is that the questions that get the most initial traffic also get the most latent traffic as people revisit their open wagers and change them.

In the case of this particular question, however, I suspect it is drawing a greater percentage of people who are taking the time to look into the minutiae of the polling in the individual states to project the state (and ultimately total) electoral counts. Assuming that, I would expect this market to be more likely to accurately predict the final outcome.

@smidge76 - Very well written comment. Though my note was pertaining to the probability that if Palin won the election and then subsequently failed to assume office as being less than 1% and the payout timing disparity, your comment pretty much covers all of the rest of the bases. I find your accurate observations in the last paragraph to be both fascinating and horrifying. Should any of that come to pass it might be the final shot to the head for the financial markets.

Good question Erik.

FYI: The text of my "Flag for Review" >>

I suggest removing caveat "5) Get inaugurated" - Here are two reasons that support this action:

1) If Obama wins, those who wagered on this outcome will get their earnings right away, however, if McCain wins those who wagered on that outcome will have their H$ tied up for 10 weeks. Since loss of access to wagering H$ retards wealth generation, this seems like an unfair bias toward those who may have wagered correctly on McCain. The result: They are somewhat penalized for winning whereas the opposing wagerers are not.

2) The likelihood that Sarah Palin would not become the next VP if she and McCain win the election is clearly less than one percent. HubDub precedent has tended to settle with 99% probabilities in the past and should do so here.

At this point, nobody really knows who is going to win as the race is incredibly tight. Therefore, NOW should be the time to make this change rather than after the election when a serious uproar may ensue.

I just realized how bad this question's settlement details suck! What's with this: 5) Get inaugurated?

All it does is tie up the H$ of peeps who wager on Palin if she and McCain win. If they lose the Obamites get their coin right away. Seems kind of crappy to me.

CORRECTION - I tried to create this question 3 MONTHS after you did! I got me some catchin' up to do.

valornhonor - Great question! I just tried to create the exact same question (4 days later than you) and had exactly the same starting odds, which are correct BTW. I prefer your question over mine, though, because you have much better background info than I would have had. Kudos!

@jenniandboys - Your comment, "questions themselves should be neutral", is unequivocally the best practice. In fact, it is worthy of being on the question guidelines page. It seems to have settled down lately, but at one time there were a lot of "see-through" questions floating around HubDub in which the thinly veiled animosity in the publishers' questions appeared to be more of a low-brow political ad than a legitimate question. I think most of us would rather wager on questions than interrogative statements. I prefer to get my Op-Ed fix from the comments section, which is almost always entertaining.

Hilariously good call! Perez Hilton is far higher on my credibility list than much of the so-called "mainstream media".

I gleefully went to cuil.com upon hearing the news of their arrival. I was quite disappointed in the site. They have a very long way to go if they plan to mount any serious challenge to Google.

CNN has always been biased in favor of the liberal agenda but it seems that lately they've been growing more and more partisan in their reporting. I've been finding it increasingly difficult to watch them anymore. Liberal media bias, once chalked off as conspiracy theory, is almost completely out in the open now. Fox News stands alone against this media-wide juggernaut though their conservative bias pales in comparison to the opposition. Whatever happened to the concept of 'just the facts'?

This is what happens when a country prints its spending money rather than collects it.

Whether they choose to prove it or not one thing is for sure: They are doing it.

Great show! I stumbled across it halfway through the season and couldn't stop watching it. 'Breaking Bad', also on AMC, kicks ass too.

Great question coolkraft! It makes my blood boil every time I read about these electrocutions. It is pure negligence. These companies ought to be fined very, very heavily. Maybe the first one could be chalked up to stupidity on the part of the contractors but the several that followed certainly rise to the level of CRIMINAL negligence and involuntary manslaughter and the inspectors or those who should have appointed them belong in jail.

Just wait until they hook it up to the internet like Xbox Live!

The time is growing short. I suspect Israel will bomb the Iranian nuclear facilities (those they can find) and when Iran retaliates with missiles aimed at Israel it will provide the final excuse the U.S. needs to exercise military options. I suspect the two major hot spots are going to be Iranian territory closest to the Strait of Hormuz, from which they will fire anti-ship missiles, and border areas near Baghdad and Basra through which they will start sending insurgents. Both actions will likely require cross border operations on the part of the U.S. The most vexing problem in both areas is that they can just keep doing it unless the U.S. totally kicks their ass. Otherwise they'll just keep poking us with sharp needles which can get pretty tiresome after awhile.

Wording confused me, too.

What's not to say the other refs just hold their liquor better? I am of the opinion that most professional sports officials are highly intoxicated while at work.

@jennieandboys -
Your comment: "that's actually the whole reason I was excited to be a superuser -- so I could suspend markets and keep people from making money on them after the fact." is a breath of fresh air. It's been driving me up the wall for months watching people chase down and greatly profit from known outcomes on unsettled questions. Addressing that problem is a major contribution. Thanks!

Suggest revisiting wording to avoid settlement conflict:

Odds description definitions leave room for argument resulting from wording (understandable due to limited space).

"Full-scale attack" / "Full attack" may require further definition. These phrases are generally understood to mean ground troops are used in conjunction with aerial and indirect fire assets. In the above question that would mean that two options included are Iranian attempts to seize control or overrun areas within Israeli borders or U.S. military and naval bases in the areas
.
"Close the Strait of Hormuz" might best be re-phrased to "Attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz". IMHO they would likely try and fail. To succeed they would have to effectively completely block all transit through the strait including naval vessels.

Great question! Just trying to stave off a settlement fracas.

If Obama picks Hagel for his VP running mate he will be shooting himself in the foot. The only Republican politician the conservative element of the party is more angry with than John McCain is Chuck Hagel. Their anger with McCain might manifest by them simply sitting out the election. However, if Hagel gets in they'll flock to the polls just to vote against him, even if it helps McCain.

He may have been inspired by "Deer Man";
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17726206/

Same here, coolkraft. I should have replaced the work 'work' with "being physically present at their place of employment", though even that would fail to cover all the bases when talking about government.

Over 3 weeks now without response, despite question having been flagged for weeks and e-mails sent. Someone is asleep at the switch. I'm done with this one. Case closed.

This is ridiculous!!!

The overwhelming majority of jobs in the U.S. simply cannot move to a four day work week. I'll spare everyone the litany of obvious reasons why they can't. Since the government is supposed to serve the people (please stop laughing, I had to say it) the only thing they are accomplishing is a reduction in services to their citizens with no corresponding meaningful reduction in taxes. Talk about self-serving!

If Google is ultimately forced to turn over this data the precedent it will set is truly horrifying. Should this come to pass, the U.S. judiciary will have, in practice, comprehensively removed any and all expectation of internet privacy of the individual. This is akin to having your phone tapped or your mail read by a third party, without your permission or knowledge, in an effort to obtain evidence against you without probable cause.

@ironman288
I am somewhat puzzled that it seems you take issue with my comment though we appear to be on the same page. You state:

"I agree the ban is too strict. Let bars and such have smoking if they want, people don't need bars. Restaurants and other business's could have a choice, but at work and school where I have to be, people have to put it out."

I am in complete agreement with that sentiment. The focus of my comment was on the bars. I do not support unfettered smoking inside schools and non-service industry workplaces. Smoking in such places in Illinois has been banned for many years already and for good cause. However, Illinois has now gone from a reasonable approach to the matter to a draconian approach. I decry such state sponsored attacks on our personal liberties in regard to smoking to the same degree I rail against all other of the innumerable instances of Mommy Government grasping beyond the reach afforded them by the Constitution.

@kruijs -
Sorry about the name spelling. It's just a little out of the norm for us English speakers to see an 'i' before a 'j' and the two letters look similar when racing through the comments. If it's any comfort, my real last name is almost always misspelled by others. Have a great day!

Troubling flashbacks to his predecessor:

When I was in college there was a local media frenzy and call for action when fetid stools began cropping up in public places around the part of town where the college bars were located. The media and town officials were convinced it was the work of college drunkards exiting the bars at 1 a.m. Much to their surprise, when they staked the place out with a camera they observed a homeless man crawl out from under the nearby parking deck when the streets cleared, and after carefully scanning the area for witnesses, he would commence evacuation. The students were cleared, yet the man's social statement remains in question.

I like the "fled the scene" part. It kind of makes you wonder where they were running off to and what was going through their minds as they ran. The combination of the words "manure" and "slurry" conjures up vile considerations for all the senses. Well done!

Cruel, hilarious, and pathetically incisive!

@krujis:
Thanks for the info and links. I'm sure you are right about problems arising from trying to get the pro players onto the national teams for an annual event. I was aware of the European 'club model' and it is the very success of that system that that prompts my desire to see a similar program in the USA. As I'm sure you know, Major League Soccer (MLS) in the USA is alive and well but not nearly as well developed as its counterpart in Europe. This stems from a number of fundamental differences in the business model that is almost certainly the result of the spectacular failure of its predecessor league in the 1970's. Public interest and overreaching expectations were major components of that failure.

However, since then, there has been a massive increase in youth soccer programs in the USA and the interest in and understanding of the sport increases with each passing year. I've been playing soccer since the early 1980's and have coached several youth teams over the years. I am absolutely amazed at the dramatic increases in quality of play I have observed over this time period. We used to get one European kid on one of our teams once in awhile and he would kick everybody's ass. Now when such a kid joins one of our competitive teams he just sort of fits in well rather than dominating. It is with no small sense of pride that I actually see some American soccer players playing on and starting for respected European club teams. I think, perhaps, it has been my desire to see too much, too fast when it comes to the rise of American soccer. It's been a slow go but it is getting there, however haphazardly. Additionally, it can not be underestimated the extent to which American football, baseball, basketball, and hockey dilute the talents of young athletes between the several major sports. Many of these sports have been so ingrained in American culture that in some communities athletic prowess is considered credible only if exhibited on one of these other culturally entrenched sports. Thankfully, that is changing now with the new generations but it still has a ways to go.

Regarding the 1994 World Cup in the USA: It definitely helped advance soccer as a serious sport in this country. The excitement in the soccer community was so pervasive it began to draw in many who would otherwise have paid no heed. Frankly, I believe it played a major role in the explosion of youth soccer leagues around the country and set the stage for the relative success of the MLS. Soccer is an awesome sport and America is slowly waking up to the fact that the rest of the world loves it for good reason.

It would be interesting to me to see the winner of the MLS championship each year play the winner of the European championship. I know what the outcome would be at first, but it would still be exciting and would, no doubt, further improve the American soccer teams. Maybe we will see this some day.

Necessary efforts toward energy independence:

- dramatic increase in on-shore and off-shore domestic oil drilling
- reasonable, practical increases in vehicular fuel efficiency
- serious investment in battery capacity technology
- serious investment in fuel cell technology
- serious investment in wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, tidal, and other alternative energy technologies
- reduce and streamline nuclear power generation and petroleum refining regulations
- substantially increase nuclear power generation and petroleum refining capacity
- stop pursuing alternative fuels made from food crops (causes inflation and starvation)
- serious investment in non-food crop bio-fuels that can be planted in poor quality soil
- mandate high efficiency standards in all electronic and electrical appliances and equipment
- complete overhaul and reduction of impractical environmental and endangered species regulations
- immediate 100% deductibility of all homeowner alternative energy investments
- reduced business income tax rates for alternative energy equipment manufacturers

AND.........

- Planning for the short, middle, and long term energy needs of the country
- A comprehensive use of all available means used in combination to reduce energy consumption and increase output.

Five percent here, 8 percent there, 3 percent elsewhere — add it all up and we're well on our way.

We may not be able to make radical forward movement in the next few months but if we don't start now, when will we? Short-sighted, self-serving morons in government for the last 30 years are the ones that got us into this trouble we are in today. We could have solved this problem ten years ago.

@krujis: It's just that the World Cup gets dragged out over such a long time. I don't know how often the EURO Cup is held, maybe it's the same. I think it we bee cool to see the World Cup operate on an annual basis like the Super Bowl or World Series. More countries would get a chance to host major events and we wouldn't have to wait so long. They could also do something else like instead of having strictly national teams they could have club teams play and call it something like World Cup - Club. If they staggered this with the actual World Cup we could at least see something global every two years. It might even invigorate club systems in some countries that are still trying to get their domestic soccer leagues off the ground.

The strict Illinois smoking ban is just another sad example of the tyranny of the majority that prevails today. It seems that anything that rises to the level of annoyance is now fair game for legislation by the same intellectual giants who so capably administer our government. The law in question does not even allow bar owners to make the choice themselves. If it did, the bars that allowed smoking would be absolutely packed compared to those that wouldn't. The "second hand smoke" argument has so many holes in it when it comes to these overreaching laws it is not even worthy of consideration since working at or patronizing a smoking establishment would be purely voluntary, whereas the smoking ban is an inarguable mandate enforceable by legal sanctions. The almost absolute lack of tolerance and the petty nature of our government and, sadly, many voters in the USA today disgusts me.

FINALLY: "Congress Passes $162B Iraq War Spending Bill"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,372523,00.html

The EURO Cup is spectacular! It makes no sense, but I find myself watching the games and the fans and wish the USA could put a team into the tournament.

After complaining about the voiding of this question and requesting that some sort of numbers be provided to me to justify it I was asked to submit my calculations (an unprecedented request). I promptly complied by forwarding an Excel spreadsheet with relevant data and now, a week later, have yet to receive a reply to my e-mail. I hesitate to submit any further sports questions until I have some measure of confidence they will not just be voided on a whim. Some of these questions take considerable time to evaluate to set the proper odds and it is quite frustrating to have your odds called into question, your submission voided without factual support, and have your calculations be recreated and submitted only to have them ignored for a week and counting. I does begin to beg the question: "Why waste my time?"

I had to laugh when I saw this question because "dispatched" is exactly what some of these birds require, especially with West Nile disease being the problem it is today. For those who do not know, red-winged blackbirds are notorious for this kind of hyper-aggressive behavior and are the bane of rural bicyclists across the Midwest. I've found a shotgun to be pretty effective therapy in the past but, given the location, it would seem a pellet gun would be the safer alternative in this case. Unfortunately, in Chicago, even that would be illegal. Maybe they'll bring in a high cost trapper after a few cases of bird mites and West Nile in humans crops up. I just love the name they've given this airborne miscreant.

@dieseldog - You are so correct about the way the government bullies its citizens with these laws. They pass blatantly un-Constitutional or unauthorized legislation and their willing accomplices in the judiciary just accept them at face value unless a major, major challenge is placed before them. For the vast majority of citizens, the financial and time resources required to fight such malfeasance is so far beyond their means they just give in to the injustice as being driven into or deeper into poverty by seeking to fight it is an even greater injustice that they cannot bear.

@valornhonor - Your comment: "Another example is red light cameras, aka cash registers on a pole" is exactly right. Many levels of government have come to view their police departments as 'profit cells' over the last few decades and have shifted a number of their enforcement efforts toward more profitable enforcement activities rather than more meaningful public protection. Even when challenged, most of these laws stay on the books for many years and the people that were punished by them cannot, in any practical way, recover what they have lost. For 20+ years people have lost millions of dollars in personal property as a result of un-Constitutional laws enacted in the 80's to thwart drug use. If any amount of an illegal drug was found in a person's property the police department could seize, keep, and sell the property and keep the money.

This meant that if you bought a car, boat, plane, or house and the previous occupant had hidden or lost a single joint (marijuana) in the property the police could take your property, permanently. It was then up to you to prove yourself ‘not guilty' (prove a negative), which flies in the face of justice, to get it back. People have actually lost all of the aforementioned as a result and still owed the money to the lender who financed the property. This law clearly ran counter to the 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

yet it stayed on the books for that long and drove people out of business and into poverty. Worse yet, it was such a profitable venture for underfunded police departments that many of them shifted their enforcement resources toward such opportunities. There's a little stink on the police for doing this but the majority of it goes to the lawmakers who enacted the laws and the slow moving, often incorrect, judiciary that sat blindly by allowing it to happen.

All three branches of government are dependant upon the sound character and competence of the men and women of which they are comprised. As these attributes dwindle so, too, do our liberties.

Big thanks to anyone who had the fortitude to have read this far! I love my country but part of it is broken and needs to be fixed.

bcguelph - It's too bad they haven't found a way to separate the games or increase the reward for long term wagers. The distance is time is the true measure of one's prognostication prowess. Unfortunately it seems to get penalized by opportunity cost here at Hubdub. But I guess the same thing happens in the stock market, too, and since they are emulating the stock market it appears they've done a good job of it. After I noticed this I've tried to keep the questions I publish myself within the profitability time range to avoid plugging up the system with soon-to-stagnate questions that lock up peoples' money.

Maybe we'll get an aerial video from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter on the news tonight of that slow speed white Bronco getaway.

Rumor has it the chunks were eaten by a strange animal between shutter clicks. However, we should not ignore the possibility that a Hubdub user is gaming the system by removing the pieces when the camera is not looking.

ironman288 - I went through that for awhile and it sucks. I now only rarely wager on long term questions. I can make 10 good short term wagers with the same $ it takes to make 1 good long term wager and earn 10 times as much. IMHO the only time to do long term wagers is when you have too much $ to wager efficiently elsewhere (not my problem yet, unfortunately) or when you are highly confident you can get in and out real quick before the market stagnates.

I have no horse in this race, but to answer the question above:

The possibility exists that the pieces in the shadow evaporated because they had almost all of their surface area exposed to the ambient temperature and thus heated more quickly and the other white patches are just the tip of a much larger piece which remains insulated by the soil with the majority of its surface area in contact with colder portions below. It might be like comparing an ice cube sitting on the ground and a block of ice buried underground with only its tip protruding. The ice cube would melt first and initially more noticeably.

Total agreement with all above comments. Thank God there is still some sanity in this world! We're in the fix we're in because "let's only do what helps right now" crowd have had their way for 30 years.

ryan is right - the bill has to pass both chambers of congress and be ready for presidential action or inaction to settle.

bcguelph - It is my understanding the surcharge was not legislated and was applied by decree. Also, just a general statement regarding the numerous laws that have been enacted in this country that are, in my opinion, un-Constitutional. It just seems like there are way too many petty laws that infringe on our personal liberties. But I guess that opens a whole can of worms.

Thanks jennieandboys. I'll give it a shot.

The Constitution is dead and buried in the USA!

Glad to see FireFox gaining in popularity. Great idea! Great program! Now if they can just get Linux up to the same functionality we can cast off Microsoft once and for all.

Two unanswered e-mails and 4 days later I am still waiting for admin who suspended this question to share with me what he thought the odds should have been so I can do a better job on the next one and resubmit. I am getting frustrated.

This question is hilarious!

I suggest waiting until it is all over in a few days to insure no mistakes in settlement. "Private" may only mean not for the general public. It is possible McCain and/or Obama may attend the private funeral yet. Since McCain was supposedly on "Meet the Press" 50 times it is possible he became friends with Russert and may be invited to the private service. Who knows? Since this will be history in a matter of days waiting to settle seems prudent.

A note to all who kindly wagered:

I have disputed the voiding of this question with the Hubdub authorities and await their reply. I analyzed these stats to the 10 degree before submitting the question and hope to have the question either reinstated or have more accurate odds (as defined by mathematically supported analysis) provided to me by the admin. Either way, I'll get this question back up in one form or another. Thanks for wagering.

Markov

mork's comment on market share is very important. The more planes the greater the opportunity for a crash.

It's already been proven. Haven't you seen the 'Messing With Sasquatch' commercial?

Funny, dieseldog!

I think a WJC/Michelle Obama liaison may be more likely. But, then again, I hear HRC wants that veep spot pretty bad.

This government is so broken they probably don't even ask for a birth certificate when candidates file their papers to run for president.

If all life is wiped out and you have at least a moment to ponder your demise, you will at least know the final Hubdub settlement would have been in your favor.

The missing keyboard letters bespeak a certain mindset. I wish I could still be surprised by the pettiness of those who enter politics but, sadly, cynicism has well overtaken hope in American politics. It appears Washington D.C. is the only remaining world capitol lacking an effective sewage treatment plant.

Also:

Overflow begins at China´s main quake lake
Source: Xinhua | 06-07-2008 08:58
Special Report: Strong quake jolts SW China

MIANYANG, Sichuan Province, June 7 (Xinhua) -- The long-awaited drainage of China's Tangjiashan "quake lake" started at 7:08 a.m. Saturday, when its water flowed into a manmade sluice channel.

A Xinhua reporter at the commanding center saw water passing the sluice channel via satellite monitor.

The overflow has been estimated to occur Friday night when water level reached the lowest point of 740 meters on the sluice channel, but it was delayed by a 0.6-meter-high temporary dam erected on Friday afternoon to protect workers on emergency construction downstream.

The swollen lake was formed by a massive landslide following the May 12 earthquake that jolted the country's southwest. It held more than 220 million cubic meters of water and posed a threat to about 1.3 million people downstream.

Editor:Du Xiaodan
http://www.cctv.com/english/20080607/101094.shtml

Vile!!!

Looks like someone caught my error and wagered it into the proper zone. Good job!

Good catch, randburg! I've been trying to keep an eye on this one and it has been tough getting updates.

After hitting the question publishing point of no return I realized I screwed up one of the above percentages big time. My error could be big H$ if it happens that way for anyone who wagers on it in time.

This is a totally kick ass question! It's like the Energizer bunny - it just keeps going and going. I'm surprised there is not a higher level of activity. It must be just another great question that has fallen off the Hubdub radar and that's a shame.

I do not favor either of these candidates before the other, but I think Hillary has really shot herself in the foot on this one. Her last chance to demonstrate that she put the party above personal ambition was the night that Barack breached the magic delegate number and won the nomination. I think most people would have given her the benefit of the doubt and just viewed her hanging on as running things through until the true end of the game. By not conceding and congratulating her opponent at that time she has opened herself up to many interpretations of her motives. She has likely needlessly wasted much goodwill without affecting the outcome in any way. This is going to haunt her and the Democratic party for some time to come. The only question now is, to what degree?

kruijs: I can't tell. It would be intersting to know. I wonder if they keep track of that in some obscure corner of Hubdub that I don't know about yet.

Clinton: no decision on what next
Jun 3 10:07 PM US/Eastern

NEW YORK (AP) - "Hillary Rodham Clinton says she will consult with party leaders and supporters to determine her next steps now that Barack Obama has enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination.

In a speech in New York, Clinton told supporters that: "This has been a long campaign and I will be making no decisions tonight." As she spoke, supporters chanted "Denver, Denver," thinking ahead to the site of the party's convention in August.

Earlier in the day, Clinton told congressional colleagues she would be open to joining Obama's ticket as his vice presidential nominee. But in her speech, the former first lady stopped short of ending or suspending her campaign. She did say she was committed to a united Democratic Party moving forward."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912VJCO1&show_article=1

The saga continues!

I just wrote a long explanation regarding the intent of this question and the system logged me out when I attempted to post it, thus wiping out my writings. Since I don't have the gumption to do it again please allow me to simply suggest the following:

Permit Ryan to settle this by his best judgment in peace. He has been very fair and objective in the past and I have no doubt he will settle it properly.

Thanks for the interest - markov

mork: I like the reference to Comcast and Cox "victims", an accurate description.

I'm all for the public internet access suggested here but there are some big problems with making it work. Since the companies bidding on the airwaves will have to buy a lot of hardware to support access and speed they will give it short shrift even if they factor it into their bid. They will use minimal hardware, they'll pay little concern to quality, they won't upgrade it, and they'll probably bury it in online advertising to generate revenue. Even if the commission spells out the minimum requirements the company will get by with the least possible effort and will force the commission to ride shotgun on them forever. Any minimum requirements will be hopelessly outdated within 6 months and they will fight tooth and nail every time a new upgrade mandate comes along. Their "premium" customers will get whatever 'good stuff' they have to offer and the non-paying users will have to fight over protracted periods of time just to get crap. The cause is good, the method will amount to zero.

What if the media started calling it "The Hubdub Massacre"? I'll bet there would be a record number of hits on the site the first day that was published.

Funny, tme!

mork: My thoughts exactly. Microsoft is the best advertising open source software could ask for.

That would make sense. By not reporting a ransom being paid it may not look as profitable to others. I still think the best deterrent would be a few pirates floating up on shore.

I was just concerned Hubdub might get sued for motivating an axe murder and then I couldn't play it any more.

This question is open to gaming since a Hubdub user could wager on it and then facilitate the outcome.

I use the latest FireFox 2 version and it kicks ass. I'll be switching to 3 once I know it's stable. If everyone knew how good FireFox is they would stop using Internet Explorer unless they had to.

The vast majority of these hijackings could be easily stopped with a very small investment in weapons. I must assume that either some international law regarding armaments on civilian vessels is unnecessarily putting these ships in jeopardy or the owners of the ships are too stupid to put an end to the problem. Given the weapons the pirates are using a single .50 caliber machine gun on deck would probably stop all of them. If that didn't work a 30mm mini-gun would definitely do the trick. Both weapons have enough range and firepower to reach out and touch the bad guys before they can do much, if any, harm to the ship. If the concern is that the someone might mis-identify a non-threatening ship as being a pirate vessel they could always wait until they show their weapons and then light them up first from a concealed location on the ship. Nothing is foolproof but when 9 out of 10 pirate vessels fail to return to port I suspect the enthusiasm for piracy in the area will be greatly diminished.

Correct fix - Thanks.

I'd wager "YES" on this question but I don't want to hold my breath waiting for Guiness to create a new category.

PayPal's customer service is abominable! I have a merchant account with them and they are impossible to reach by phone. When you are then forced to reach out to them by e-mail they tell you they may take several days to respond and they use the full measure of that time. When they finally do respond they direct you to a FAQ page or canned question knowledgebase that you have probably already reviewed prior to contacting them. After running through this frustrating cycle with them a few time you finally get a human being responding to your e-mail and, though polite, they have been quite incapable of attending to my concerns. What sucks is that 1) my money is involved, and 2) there are very few competitive choices in most instances. They are the Microsoft of the online money transfer world, a moniker they should wear with shame.

Thanks for the clarification crowe. Erik is right. The NK government is as close to universally untrustworthy as is humanly possible.

@mork:

Makes much more sense that way. I should have realized it was not being considered for airports.

They are using the same landing technology that was used on a previous mission that suffered a catastrophic landing.

What if they submit to the accounting by offering incomplete or inaccurate information? Saying and doing are two different things.

I may have missed something in the article but they can't possibly be considering spraying everyone waiting to board a plane. If someone is suspect enough to spray why don't they just take them away for swab testing and spare everyone the mess?

paulcrift & theonecalledmichael have the numbers right. I, too, am hoping for the best but wagering on the worst. Successful Martian landings have been substantially below 95% AND there is no $ to be made at this point on a yes.

Good question , ryan! Heck with having to choose between two evils - On Hubdub we can now choose between nine.

Good find, anaverageamerican!

Reminds me of a replicator a la Stargate SG-1.

Thanks, mork! Info is there. Article indicates only the most prominent are listed but it does give some idea. I wonder if there is someplace on the internet that has the raw numbers.

If anyone knows how many pardons each of the last five presidents, including the sitting president thus far, have issued it would be of great interest. Since it appears that the more pardons a president issues the more his character and motives should be drawn into question, perhaps the answer to this question will serve to educate us as to which has served us most incapably.

Super funny owl1!

Unfortunately, many state governments are extremely inefficient. It appears Oregon falls into the category. It's frustrating as hell, but if you don't live in Oregon there is not much you can do about it. Worse yet, if you do live in Oregon there probably still isn't much you can do about it. Welcome to the world of Jay-Walkers occupying high places because their intellectually challenged brethren allow them to do so.

mork - Your informative question credentials are beyond equal! Kudos!

mrperfkt, THX

In all sincerity, no dis whatsoever on Hubdub in my saying this, but I have noticed a profound silence on this issue wherever presented. I am wondering if it is for simple lack of notice (in which case it should be further highlighted) or if conversations regarding solutions to the problem are taking place behind the scenes. My hope is for the latter.

Although entertaining and partially agreed with, any indication of even the smallest measure of evidence to substantiate the most egregious accusations remains absent. Defending a position is not the same as defending a person. Expecting evidence, or at least sound reasoning, to support acceptance of accusations, philosophies, or perspectives is just common sense. Any substantial claim worth making is worth defending in detail. A statement that can't suffer scrutiny is more likely based in emotion than fact.

tocm:

You are right on both counts. This market has been goofed from day one AND the odds truly should be 50/50. Here's the problem with putting a lot of H$ into it, though: Too many peoples' personal biases and wishful thinking are driving this market on and off of reality. That means that if you bet right and people skew the market by emotion you could end up with all of your money tied up until you are ultimately proven to be correct. Worse yet, the odds variance isn't high enough to make it worthwhile. I have learned the hard way that you can play Hubdub, be right, and still lose when opportunity cost (i.e. money tied up for long time for low payoff) is taken into consideration.

IMHO:

Questioning someone's motives about judgement calls they have made, when backed up by relatively clear reasons as to why they might bias themselves toward a given position is fair game. However, presenting accusations that someone was involved in heinous criminal activity must rise to a level beyond mere conjecture. Though judicially impervious evidence need not be demonstrated to maintain credibility, absolutely baseless aspersions, devoid of even a modicum of physical evidence, serve only to define the accuser as a conspiracy theorist. Though conspiracy theorists are on very rare occasion correct, they are vastly most often wrong. As such, their credibility and judgement is assumed to be flawed until proven otherwise.

Anybody can say anything about anybody. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Anybody can hate, disrespect, or malign anybody. Talk is cheap as hell. We can all argue about bias and psychology (which is appropriate and beneficial) but if you are going to say Americans were involved in a conspiracy to facilitate or permit 9/11 to take place, for God's sake at least try back it up!

Show me an American bought their plane tickets. Let me see documents that the CIA channeled money into their bank accounts. Share with me the recording of the American petroleum industry's representative giving them their marching orders. At least one pixel of Cheney on the grassy knoll will give us a start. I don't need a "WHY". Everybody has a "WHY"! Give me a "HOW" and back it up.

Oh, yes................and please pardon my outburst.

I think most of us daily visitors to the site have had similar frustrations. It may not be the norm but it is annoying when it happens. I raised the same concern and posted some suggestions on the getsatisfaction forum about a week ago (http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/questions_with_no_suspend_date_time_can_we_fix_this

A couple suggestions i made:

- Take action to settle all questions as quickly as possible. Many people have been wagering on events for which the outcome is already known (just look at some of the graphs). This should reduce laborious admin voiding time, reduce the amount of time users' H$ is out of reach, and reduce unfair wagering practices.
- Set up and admin/power-user "settlement chain" whereby questions that have reached a settlement date or been flagged for settlement flow down the chain as they age. For example, if the settlement point has been reached and not settled within 4 hours it is sent on to the secondary settling authority and then after an additional 4 hours it is sent on to a tertiary settling authority. Throughout this time period any of the settling authorities that have received the request may settle the question.

I think there may be more work at times than people to do it so streamlining the settlement process is paramount.

mork & fof: Right you are! He should have held a press conference at the White House and made that very same statement in the Rose Garden rather than the Knesset. If his domestic critics are reserved enough keep the criticism at home it is only proper that he do the same. Since his actions are attacked only at home they should be defended only at home.

Here, I think, is the major point of contention in all of this:

Certain individuals and groups of people are openly stating or strongly implying that the Bush Administration has made no diplomatic efforts to attend to the Iran problem, in particular, and prefer to use guns rather than conversation. They suggest that if Bush just wasn't such a heavy-handed warmonger these problems could be solved through meaningful conversation with the bad guys.

Here's the problem: These base assumptions, the jumping off point for the vitriolic exchanges, are simply not true. Additionally, hypothetically, if previous administrations had pulled out all stops on diplomacy and failed, why would the next administration seek to repeat a method which has already failed?

It couldn't be more obvious that diplomatic efforts are the preferred initial manner by which to deal with serious international issues relating to a nation's safety. The real question is: When diplomacy doesn't work, what next? In this case it appears to me that the Bush Administration has been slowly working it's way through all of the diplomatic options. For example, low level diplomacy has failed. High level diplomacy through intermediaries (i.e. major European powers, Russia, China, the UN, etc.) has failed. An stated offering of rewards of sorts have failed. Strong language has failed. Sanctions have failed. Ignoring Iranian naval provocations in the Persian Gulf has failed. Taking no military action against Iran's persistent training and arming of terrorists in Iraq, and elsewhere, who are actually killing Americans and our has failed. Patience in the extreme has failed. This can go on and on.......

The argument that this administration, or prior administrations for that matter, have not sought a diplomatic solution to the Iran problem has begun to ring so hollow it is growing increasingly difficult to give further consideration to arguments more can and should be done on the diplomatic front. There comes a point where reason and practicality must prevail and when both are lacking it strongly suggests a profound lack of understanding of the facts surrounding the matter at hand. This is unforgivably exacerbated by many politicians selfishly jockeying for advantage through manipulation of the less informed amongst us.

Make no mistake, I am not pleased with Bush or the Republican Party. They have both screwed up in grand fashion and show no signs of correcting their stupid ways. Unfortunately, the same can be said of their ilk on the other side of the aisle. Nonetheless, politics aside, the facts of this matter remain the same. It's just too bad our politicians choose not to level with the American people.

I saw something about this on the History Channel a couple of years ago that pretty much spelled out what happened and it shocked the hell out of me. Firstly because it happened at all and secondly because I had not heard anything about such a major incident. It's scary to think something like that could have been covered up to the degree that it was. If you look hard enough there is a tremendous amount of detail about this out there. What i would like to know is who exactly decided to cover it up and why. This thing was serious enough that it should have been on the front page of all of the newspapers the next day.

Here's a sad life truth:

Diplomacy doesn't work with some people and after a point implies weakness that only begets more violence.

The RIAA's brutal bullying of their victims of lesser means is disgusting! It speaks to their failure to both attend to the true facilitators of the methods by which they suffer and the shifting mechanics of the information age. The SCUMBAGS in question clearly have sought control by way of fear. History is fraught with "men" of such questionable measure. May the recording companies and artists they represent richly and duly suffer for their attack upon their patrons and ultimately move on, as they must, to a new profit model.

tocm -

New format messed me up, too. Almost made the same mistake.

lucidstates -

I love the humor and you are right on with the "whack jobs who can't keep their hands to themselves" comment!!! Isn't that what it's all about? I remember a comedian once (I can't recall who it was) describing the plight of violent criminals. He said something to the effect of "In grade school they tell you to keep your hands to yourselves. Later on, if you don't listen, they send you to a place where NOBODY can keep their hands to themselves".

Another great question!

Likely particular comments in question:

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

"We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

- George W. Bush (15 May 2008)

Author: Please correct above characterization if wrong.

At great risk of friendly annoyance to those of differing considerations, I must say, I LMAO big time when I read, in particular, the statement: "as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along."

Que charisma, baby!

Given Bill's alleged habits (clearly, falsely attributed for nefarious political purposes), one might expect the odds to be higher. But, then again, that is based upon two assumptions.

First the beer, then the smokes, now the porn! Hubdub now stands alone, the sole unpresented horseman of the Taxation Apocalypse.