nerdgirl

It's hard to take your questions seriously when you make statements like that. Suspect you have something to offer but statements like that suggest you're not really asking questions. Nonetheless responding as if your initial query was legitimate and serious: “Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy,” Sen Biden asserts that there is a high likelihood that in the 6 months following the inauguration will be an international incident not of natural causes, i.e., it won’t be an asteroid, hurricane/typhoon, earthquake, or gamma ray burst. It will be a crisis generated by humans. The response to the international crisis will require leadership. “I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate.” Sen Biden can think of 4 or 5 possible scenarios. So can I. While I can’t speak for Sen Biden, possible candidates include Iran (nuclear program), DPRK (nuclear program), Russia (Georgia, oil, natural gas), Afghanistan, Pakistan. “And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right." The leader of the country will need the support of the electorate. He was speaking to individuals who are politically involved and leaders in their respective communities. He’s indicating that people – regular Americans – will have to contribute and that the federal government will not be the only important player. The solutions will not come solely from the federal government nor from the money alone. The solutions and choices may not be politically popular. In the long term some hard choices may need to be made that initially may be very unpopular. “Gird your loins," Biden warned. This is an idiom of Roman origin; it originally meant to prepare to put on one’s armor and prepare for battle. The phrase is also used by Peter (Peter 1:13-16 KJV) and Paul (Eph 6:14 KJV) to refer to psychological preparation and preparing for a metaphorical battle of ideas. It is generally used today to mean or invoke an idea of preparing to do something difficult or preparing for action. "We're gonna win with your help, God willing, we're gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. Sen Biden is asserting confidence in his and Sen Obama’s campaign. He doesn’t expect the next few weeks to be easy. One might suggest that he is intimating past negative campaigning and anticipation of future negative campaigning by his opponents. Regardless of whoever is elected, Sen Biden asserts that the challenges the next President will be left with (the economic crisis, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran) will be large. “It's like cleaning the Augean stables, man.” This is a literary reference referring to the mythological fifth labor of Hercules. He doesn’t literally mean cleaning stables in a Mediterranean-area sea. He also doesn’t literally mean Sen Obama is Hercules – it’s a metaphor. He’s referring to the fixing the financial crisis, restoring confidence in American market, and dealing with recession, rising unemployment, housing crisis, and the deficit as Herculean tasks. “This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy." Sen Biden is asserting that cleaning up the effects and consequences of the economic turmoil/crisis are not going to be easy. There are long-term systematic problems that need to be addressed both domestically and internationally. (And it would take more paragraphs than [Andy9o8] would read to go into those detailed causal factors [edit to add]; he should just read [idrankwhat]'s concise synopsis.) “I've forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I'm not being falsely humble with you. I think I can be value added, but this guy has it,” Sen Biden is referencing his long-term experience in foreign policy, e.g., chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He feels this experience will add value and concurrently he has confidence in Sen Obama’s leadership and judgement to handle an international crisis. Biden said Obama is “gonna need your help. Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We're gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years. So I'm asking you now, I'm asking you now, be prepared to stick with us. Remember the faith you had at this point because you're going to have to reinforce us.” He’s suggesting that he and Sen Obama realize that hard decisions, unpopular decisions will have to be made to deal with the economic crisis and move the country forward. Simple rhetoric and popular ideas (like gas tax holidays) are unlikely to be the type of policy decisions that will be needed. He expects that some of those necessary decisions will result in low poll numbers (“there” as in a lowing voter approval rather than high). “There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don't know about that decision.’ Because if you think the decision is sound when they're made, which I believe you will when they're made, they're not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they're popular, they're probably not sound.” He’s asserting that simple, popular (bread & circuses style) type policies are not going to resolve the financial crisis. Please let me know if anything remains unclear for you or your colleagues. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How do you know that? The part we can detect is not infinite. Quade's conclusion is reasonable, but I think nerdgirl would be a better choice. Thank you. I really don't want that responsibility, however. I prefer to be at intersections, margins, and bridging gaps. I'll pass the nomination to Wendy, who can decide how she wants to respond. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And the left sees only neo-cons. How do you define 'so far to the right' and how is the republican party further right than your 80's example? Really? [Speedracer]’s post was about religious right, which is predominantly Protestant Christian. Many of the leaders of the neo-conservative movement are Jewish (Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Cohenn, Robert Kagan, Donald Kagan [not related], Mark Gershon, Norman B. Podhoretz) and Roman Catholic. A good example of "so far to the right" is the oft-cited Groseclose and Milyo UCLA study that purportedly "shows" media bias to the left. The method they used reflected standardized/set a scale based on ADA, which are scores are on a scale from 1-100. A score of 50 is defined as the middle, supposed to reflect the “average voter.” In order to show the asserted bias, Groseclose and Milyo looked at ADA scores for Congress folks in 1993-1999 (e.g., Gingrich era). And used the scores for those folks to (re)-define anything to the left of them as "liberal." This method resulted in The Wall Street Journal being being claimed as a far left liberal newspaper. The average ADA score for 1993-1999 for Congressional Democrats was 74.1 (approximately halfway between the middle & far left), whereas the average score for Congressional Republicans 1993-1999 was 11.2 (25 would be halfway between the middle & far right). The majority of Congressional Republicans during that time were far right not moderate conservatives. The median score for *all* of Congress during the time period was 38.0. By the method that the authors employ to set their “cutpoints” [their wording], the Republican representatives of Congress btw 1993-1999 were significantly bias to the right and that weighted score was used for comparison. By Groseclose and Milyo’s method, some moderate conservatives Republicans were considered “liberal.” Very significantly. There's an example how 'so far to the right' can be defined/measured/redefined, the of shift of some (elected officials) on the "right" further to the right (& away from traditional moderate conservative positions), and how that can affect perceptions. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

what's to remark about? A selective misreading by some doesn't warrant much of a response. More koolaid please. Again, what is your point? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

During the Asian financial crisis of the 1990s, Time magazine ran a famous cover (well, famous in economics and policy wonky-communities … [geek]-). At that time the “Committee to Save the World” (in Time magazine’s assessment) consisted of Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, then-Sec of Treasury Rubin, and his deputy Charles Summers (later to be perhaps more infamous for his time as President of Harvard University). If we were to have a magazine cover with a similar headline today, perhaps The Economist, who would be on it? Now chairman of the Federal Reserve Ben Bernake and Secretary Paulson? Would it even be an American policy maker? Is it the G8 (G7?) heads of state? Is it the chief economists/treasury secretaries/variants from China, India, Dubai, Brazil, and Iceland? See special report on the world economy – “When fortune frowned,” by The Economist’s economics editor, Zanny Minton Beddoes, from the 11 October 2008 issue. The author was also interviewed for an Economist podcast. As far as steps to minimize the likelihood of a repeat of the factors that created the global economic turmoil, it was suggested that cautious re-regulation “with some humility” (the report’s author is British) is in order but more importantly, a flexible, multi-lateral, market-based (rather than government/formal international agree ) system capable of dealing with emerging structural changes (growth of emerging markets, globalization, introduction of new sophisticated mathematical economic risk methods) in the world economy is in order. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What part or content of Michelle Obama's thesis do you find questionable? Seems it's the part she wrote when she was a black woman. Oh my. Another prominent black woman wrote her undergrad thesis (at University of Denver) on Stalinist musician-composers, what does that say about her views on communism? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What part or content of Michelle Obama's thesis do you find questionable? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Which part of Michelle Obama's (nee Robinson) thesis? What about it causes you discomfort? Probably the first 12 words of the 6th sentence of the 4th paragraph. If you pronounce it backward, it sounds like "wear your underwear on the outside" (or something to that effect). Smoking gun! Hmmm ... now I'm going to have to go look up what are the "first 12 words of the 6th sentence of the 4th paragraph." It's 98 pages so that's not real far into it. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The data doesn't mislead; the data just is. How it is interpreted may be used to mislead. Do you have other data to counter what is presented or show differing trends? Working with those figures for sake of discussion, one explanation might be that Sen Obama's campaign is more rigorous in examing and refunding/redesignating individual donations, eh? Or there has been an increase in intrusive oversight? Or Sen Obama's donations are being scrutinized more closely? Another explanation might be the Sen McCain has more larger donations and Sen Obama more individual smaller donations. Or something else? CFRP data reports 193,636 individual donors for Sen Obama and 122,753 individual donors to Sen McCain. For Sen Obama the highest number of donations (71,263 came) from donations in the range $200-499 (i.e., bunch of smaller donations), whereas Sen McCain single largest donation range was $1000-2300 (30,948 individuals), (i.e., fewer larger donations). Sen Obama's campaign has also raised more money in absolute amount ($454M, through date of last report, 31 Aug 08). Sen McCain's campaign has raised $240M. First one needs to assess whether the 43,419 to 10,928 refund/redesignation ratio (3.97:1, or rounded to 4:1) is significant or just an artifact of the higher overall donors and higher amount of money raised. (This doesn't say anything about which meaning/interpretation is meaningful ... it's just to get an estimate if the difference is significant.) For a more robust analysis, one should also look at historical refund/redesignation rates -- is either Sen McCain's or Sen Obama's significantly different from the norm? (And why? Could it be better oversight? more intrusiver or assertive oversight?) What's the significance of the figures you've cited? Imo, it goes back to the primary data & asking questions. Overseas donations are not illegal; donations from non-US citizens, whether overseas or CONUS are illegal. Apparently having foreign nationals located in the US solicit or 'bundle' donations is also less than legal. Some are probably foreigners, some are probably US nationals abroad, and some are likely US servicemembers. Is it a 10:1:1 ratio or 1:100:10 ratio or 0.1:1000:100 ratio? Those FEC two-letter geographic designators don't indicate anything other than geographical location. It is a start, e.g., one is more likely to find a foreigner in Bruxelles, Singapore or Copenhagen than a US citizen; that doesn't preclude US citizens living abroad does it?

Wouldn't "full disclosure" be 100% and anything less be "XX% disclosure"? Good point. That's the way the data is reported. I probably should have put quotes around "full disclosure." What the term means by CFRP here. It refers to percent of individual donors whose FEC-collected donor information is fully disclosed (name, occupation, etc), loans, other sources of funds, and information released by campaigns on PACs, etc., i.e., 92.4% of information on individual donors to Sen Obama's campaign by individuals and PACs that have given directly to the campaign been fully disclosed information, 2.2% "incomplete," and 5.5% "No disclosure." 86.8% of Sen McCain's donors have been fully disclose, 3.1% "incomplete," and 10.1% "no disclosure." Only 71.6% of Rep Bob Barr's donors have been fully disclosed. Rep Barr is the lowest percentage of "full disclosure" of six candidates, and Sen Obama's has the highest "full disclosure" percentage. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Your understanding is correct w/r/t the 1800s. Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party. The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves). When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.) When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) socialist (& not in the way the term gets applied to Sen Obama). Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist/socialist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.) Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists). Things change, eh? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This post and the cited content is an interesting contrast with "Good job McCain supporters." [alw] What was your intent? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Which part of Michelle Obama's (nee Robinson) thesis? What about it causes you discomfort? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Why? (should we all read it?) Curious as to your reasons. (Disclosure: I haven't read the book but have heard the author speak and am familiar with his arguments.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Actually, that's some fact & some fiction mixed in there. Sen Obama & Sen McCain have returned all questionable donations. In both campaigns, it has largely been outside individuals/groups who have discovered foreign donations, foreign solicitors, & foreign bundlers. There is also evidence the Sen McCain has not been as transparent as suggested in revealing donors, e.g., "McCain campaign’s approach is in effect a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy that seeks to limit political damage rather than to turn over to authorities those who may be violating the law." The bipartisan Center for Responsive Politics finds Sen Obama to be 92.4% full disclosure w/r/t donations and campaign financing, whereas Sen McCain has only been 86.8% full disclosure. Do you have other data supporting your claim and countering what the CFRP found? I care very much what the rest of the world thinks - driven largely by one long-term strategic goal: it makes executing US foreign policy goals -- whether they be economic liberalization, ending Communism, spreading democracy, reducing the threat of nuclear terrorism, or protecting US interests -- easier, less costly (in dollars & lives), and more efficient. Or to put more simply, it's a lot more difficult for deployed US service members and nationals when 'they're' trying to kill us (literally and metaphorically). --- -- --- W/r/t the issue of public financing, actions, and integrity, there is also more to the 'story.' The Campaign for Clean Money, a bi-partisan watchdog group (e.g., their principal target before the election was Rep William Jefferson (D-LA)) notes "McCain Attacks Obama on Public Financing, But His Own Retreats Get No Attention": “Sen. McCain is not a real reformer anymore, and the widening gap between his words and actions is disturbing. While clinging to past achievements on campaign finance reform, he’s run a campaign that goes counter to the reformer he once was. In addition, he hasn’t just walked, but sprinted away from his previous support for comprehensive public financing. In 2002, McCain called his state’s Clean Elections public financing law a national model. During this campaign he reversed himself and said he would oppose public financing for all federal elections. He has allowed flocks of Washington’s top corporate lobbyists to staff and fundraise for his campaign despite calling them ‘birds of prey’ on the stump. Even as he reminds voters of his own reform law, he is promising to appoint Supreme Court justices who will gut it. “Sen. Obama’s decision to forgo public financing in the general election was disappointing. But that decision does not obscure the fact that it is Barack Obama, not John McCain, who is currently sponsoring bills to fix the presidential public financing system and extend public financing to congressional elections.” While it seems likely that a candidate who "Tak[es] a principled stand on reform," would be preferable; is one who is transparent (i.e., honest) or one who is opaque (i.e., not fully disclosing) in his "flip-flopping" [your word] more problematic? Why? Turning down public financing is not illegal nor is changing one's mind w/r/t legislation one had previously indicated support. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Very good & apt w/r/t torture, or more specifically fighting against ethical injustices as being a worthy moral pursuit. The full version of the quote from Mill's The Contest in America:“But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing is worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other." He was writing about those in the North who opposed the Civil War. He's arguing for the importance of *not* sacrificing principle -- what he calls "virtuous cause" -- for ease. One of the arguments -- altho' not the one I usually argue -- is the moral and ethical opprobrium of torture. Paritcularly notable is the last line:"As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other." Mill is speaking about the kind of battle both metaphorical and literal against those would advocate for (in the metaphorical & literary battle) and use (in the literal battle) torture. Reducing oneself to the behavior of those who uses torture does not make "us" better. Being willing to stand-up metaphorically and literally against such injustices is the kind of thing Mill would advocate worth fighting for. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's a neat site! Luv the individual State data with linear regressions. [nerd]- /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Under the closed to the notional scenario you suggest ("holding an enemy with useful information to save american lives"), I would want the most effective interrogation method used, i.e., *not* torture. Traditional interrogation methods have been shown to work under extreme circumstances, e.g., the real-world “ticking time bomb scenario”: “[Jack] Cloonan [32-year FBI veteran, whose experience included counterintelligence, counterterrorism, the Joint Terrorism Task Force] and a New York Police Department detective secured actionable intelligence from a suspect in the foiled millennium-bombing plot in just six hours on December 30, 1999 -- by following FBI procedure, and by encouraging a suspect to pray during his Ramadan fast. The suspect even agreed to place calls to his confederates, which led to their speedy arrests.” (1) In the 3 cases in which CIA has acknowledged use of waterboarding (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, & Abd al Rahim al Nashiri) it is unclear to dubious that “enhanced interrogation” did anything that traditional interrogation would not have. On the contrary, there is significant evidence that “enhanced interrogation” led to reams of false confessions, which took away time & resources, and may have undermined the useful intel for prosecution. (2) In at least two “ticking time bomb” scenarios, useful intelligence has been gained without the use of “enhanced interrogation,” waterboarding, or torture. (3) Bad information obtained through torture by thirdparty states has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers, e.g., Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi. (4) At least 60 years of operators, across multiple agencies have observed the ineffectiveness of torture in interrogation. Taken in consideration with the other 3 arguments against torture (reciprocity on US service members, impedance of US foreign policy and national defense goals, and morals/ethics), there is no strategic, operational, or tactical advantage to employing waterboarding or “enhanced interrogation” as a euphemism for torture as part of investigatory process. One may argue that such a policy has (strongly) negative strategic, operational, and tactical repercussions. If you really want to advocate for effective tools in the notional scenario suggest you look to what the US military recognizes: torture is ineffective as a means of interrogation and such a policy puts US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and US foreign nationals, such as defense and intelligence civilians deployed at greater risk (than they already are). Torture is not a policy that any nation should employ. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No benefit of the doubt needed: the professional interrogators of the US military ARE very competant w/r/t interrogation. The US military is also clear on the ineffectiveness of torture for interrogation. US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (large pdf file) states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force” “Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.” “The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.” Unilateral, non-ambiguous statement with further detailing what not to do, i.e., don't use torture because it's not effective. FM 35-42 also warns: “Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort.” The United States Marine Corps Interrogator Translator Teams Association (composed of active duty and retired Marines) notes: “…despite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them.” The folks with operational experience, i.e., military and civilian LEO including those with direct experience (i.e., the USMC Interrogators and the US Army HUMINT collectors, FBI); all the former Secretaries of State including GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret); Sen John McCain; the Intelligence Science Board; the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; multiple former CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) officers have been explicit on the non-effectiveness of torture in interrogation and opposition to it. None of the known incidences or even accusations of torture, of which I am aware, were executed by professional interrogators in the US military. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Do you have any evidence of that? I would argue he voted against that specific legislation becuase of the extensive amount of executive privilege, specifically limiting the access of Congress. The biggest divide inside the Beltway is not Republican v Democrats; it's Executive v Congress. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Does DARPA get all the credit here though, or shouldn't it be shared considerably with Berkeley and Bell Labs? Not sure to what you are specifically refering ... lots of different options. If Bell Labs & transistor, sure; as Meitner/Hahn and Jenner deserve credit for their respective discoveries. Berkeley - not sure you mean UC Berkeley or LBNL? Either way, both likely govt-(supported)-programs. As far as the govt program that enabled/fostered the ARPANET - yes, Steve Lukasik, et al. should get credit. I think the development of unix was a key driver as arpanet became nsfnet in the 80s/90s and its success over rivals like prodigy, compuserve, AOL, and the well. So I credit the SysV folks at AT&T and the BSD people at Cal. If you want to credit NSFnet, it's still a government program. NSFnet opened ARPAnet to a much wider user base. The UNIX operating systems (SysV and BSD) were incremental/evolutionary technology developments; don't get me wrong - they were important ones. One can trace back UNIX to MIT and Multics and back to ... ARPA. Technology developments made by folks at UIUC might have been more important in opening the internet to wider user base. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the clarification. Concur. And still basing that concurence on manufacturing capacity (& not just the large reactor vessels), skill sets (technical and craft) of available workforce, ballooning nuclear power plant capital costs. Hydrocarbon still *much* cheaper .. (today). VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I'm cognizant of those aspects: those are sometimes invoked as indicators of interference or such. The point is that even if one magically removed requriements for safety/security/reduction of risk or magically had the 'perfect' site, the manufacturing capacity is inadequate. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I missed the debate and haven't had a chance to read the transcript. He really said that? Where does he expect to get the forging for the reactor vessels? Japan Steel Works is the only supplier of 600MT castings that are required for reactor vessels. They do 4-6/y, aim to increase to 10-12/y. There's a line. Japan Steel Works charges to *get* in line; countries/companies are selling their spot in line to high bidders. In the US B&W (who manages Y-12 as part of consortia) is looking to upscale capability but even the best scnarios would not have the manufacturing capacity for 40 new nuclear reactors in 4 years. I wonder how many people think that the '40 in 4y' scenario is possible? VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying