<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ebl_OFEaU8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5ebl_OFEaU8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Breaking News:

Obama wins Heisman Trophy after watching a collegiate football game.

Maybe soon Obama will win a Darwin Award.

http://img5.glowfoto.com/images/2009/10/14-1227169893T.jpg (http://www.glowfoto.com/viewimage.php?img=14-122716L&y=2009&m=10&t=jpg&rand=9893&srv=img5)

First of all, you have to ask yourself if America really 'dominated in science for 60 years' or this is just more of the 'we're the best' propoganda that is shoveled down our throats as Americans. Historically, a greater number of technological advances have either come from Europeans or from naturalized Americans with European roots than Americans. But, let's ignore the facts and assume America dominated the world scientifically for 60 years.

Why?

You claim it is because of government research money. I think you need to look at a combination of factors such as the size of America's economy in relation to the rest of the world during most of the 20th century, the fact that Europe spent much of the 20th century rebuilding and had little time to research (and somehow managed to produce more Nobel laureates than the US in that time!), the fact that for most of the 20th century, the now growing and expanding economies of Asia were mostly agrarian in nature and had little need for technological innovation, and, perhaps most importantly, the Americans are better at marketing than the rest of the world (which leads to them being able to produce the illusion of being the technological leaders without actually being the technological leaders.)

Technological innovation is driven by two things basically - war and economics - two things the US was truly dominant at in the 20th century. It's no wonder that the US can't maintain the illusion of technological greatness anymore. America is fighting wars against technologically inferior opponents which decreases the need to improve weaponry and these wars have broken the economy which decreases the rewards for innovation.

Nothing you've said here negates the basic premise, does government spending on research matter and can it be a driving force in a country's success in research and development? I know the history of Nobel prizes and I am quite familiar with history of propaganda, but I am taking my measure from the success of the 20th century and great movements in a number of areas. If we set aside the notion on my part that America leads, and deal with the larger concept, does a government focus on and government spending matter, in terms of success in research and development, I think the answer is clearly yes.

That economics would be important here is clear, a richer government, due to the economic success of that country, would have more money to donate to research. Separating the two is IMO, impossible.

Also, that naturalized Americans did the research, here in America, doesn't negate the idea either, unless you are saying that training matters more than a venue in which to carry out one's research? Don't buy that, at all. Both matter. But both are contributed to by... government spending.

On the other hand, the notion that war drives advances may be misplaced. Here is a counter argument to that oft repeated, but never proven notion by John Lienhard.

http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1418.htm

So, I split your notions, yes, economics does matter, but war, IMO probably matters less than we are sold (go war go).

Now, given your position, I would guess you'd argue that economics per say matters, but that government matters not at all. If so, clarify and we can go from there.

Last comment, IMO you are correct, America does sell it's prowess, as do all countries. That we are arrogant about it is true, but that doesn't address the underlying issue unless you are trying to say that we've had no real successes, but are simply good at marketing? If so, try looking at the NP in medicine, I think we've earned something like 18 out of 30. That darned pesky NIH with all that government spending on research.

Because we've never made a point of sytematically persecuting our Jews.

Brutal, funny, and true.

Of course now that we think science is evil, because it doesn't come from the gut, maybe we will get around to that.

Brutal, funny, and true.

Of course now that we think science is evil, because it doesn't come from the gut, maybe we will get around to that.

Brutal? Yes. Funny? Never! And becoming more and more true ("systematically!).

Brutal? Yes. Funny? Never! And becoming more and more true ("systematically!).

I'm sorry, but in the context of a reply to the original post, it was funny. Maybe sickly so, but nonetheless. Racist, religonist, and sexist jokes are funny, maybe inappropriate, awful, disgusting etc, but still funny.

The video maker calls them 7 lies in 2min.

I call it 7 broken promises in 2 min.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UErR7i2onW0&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UErR7i2onW0&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Administration Loses Bid to Exclude Fox News From Pay Czar Interview

The Obama administration on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the White House pool except Fox News. But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included.



The Obama administration on Thursday failed in its attempt to exclude Fox News from participating in an interview of an administration official, as Republicans on Capitol Hill stepped up their criticism of the hardball tactics employed by the White House.
The Treasury Department on Thursday tried to make "pay czar" Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the network pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions.
But the Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks consulted and decided that none of their reporters would interview Feinberg unless Fox News was included. The pool informed Treasury that Fox News, as a member of the network pool, could not be excluded from such interviews under the rules of the pool.
The administration relented, making Feinberg available for all five pool members and Bloomberg TV.
The pushback came after White House senior adviser David Axelrod told ABC News' "This Week" on Sunday that Fox News is not a real news organization and other news networks "ought not to treat them that way."
Media analysts cheered the decision to boycott the Feinberg interview unless Fox News was included, saying the administration's gambit was taking its feud with Fox News too far. President Obama has already declined to go on "Fox News Sunday," even while appearing on the other Sunday shows.
"I'm really cheered by the other members saying "No, if Fox can't be part of it, we won't be part of it,'" said Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik, calling the move to limit Feinberg's availability "outrageous."
"What it's really about to me is the Executive Branch of the government trying to tell the press how it should behave. I mean, this democracy -- we know this -- only works with a free and unfettered press to provide information," he said.
Several top White House advisers have appeared on other news channels to criticize Fox News' coverage of the administration, dismiss the network as the mouthpiece of the Republican Party and urge other news organizations not to treat Fox News as a legitimate news network.
On Wednesday, Obama, speaking publicly for the first time about his administration's portrayal of Fox News as illegitimate, said he's not "losing sleep" over the controversy.
"I think that what our advisers simply said is, is that we are going to take media as it comes," Obama said when asked about his advisers targeting the network openly. "And if media is operating, basically, as a talk radio format, then that's one thing. And if it's operating as a news outlet, then that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."
Obama's comments also came after he met Monday with political commentators Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC; Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post; Ron Brownstein of the National Journal; John Dickerson of Slate; Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd and Bob Herbert of the New York Times; Jerry Seib of the Wall Street Journal, Gloria Borger of CNN and U.S. News and World Report, and Gwen Ifill of PBS.
House Republican leaders rushed to the defense of conservative commentators Thursday after the president's comments.
Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, said conservative commentators speak more for Americans than the national media outlets that have targeted them for criticism.
"Goaded on by a White House increasingly intolerant of criticism, lately the national media has taken aim at conservative commentators in radio and television," the Indiana Republican said on the House floor. "Suggesting that they only speak for a small group of activists and even suggesting in one report today that Republicans in Washington are 'worried about their electoral effect.' Well, that's hogwash."

I'm sorry, but in the context of a reply to the original post, it was funny. Maybe sickly so, but nonetheless. Racist, religonist, and sexist jokes are funny, maybe inappropriate, awful, disgusting etc, but still funny.

I guess I'll have to refer to my hero, Mao, who said "you fight your fight, I'll fight mine!"

Interesting e-mail today...

"If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter
installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have
laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is
really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special
Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and
incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the
non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor
slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with
people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had mis-spelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and "potatoe" as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a
single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims
throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening inAmerica, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major
corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything? Don't worry. He's done all this in 5 months -- so you'll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer."

- unknown

Good question (a year ago!).

LOL, classic government at work.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0C4d2wPvRyY&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0C4d2wPvRyY&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

And you want this government to run our healthcare???

In less than one year.... "hoax and change"

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obamas-09-deficit-exceeds-all-eight-years-of-Bush-red-ink-54801777.html

What part of inheriting two wars and a great recession, don't you get?

What part of inheriting two wars and a great recession, don't you get?

The part where fixing his inheritance ends and "fundamentally changing America" begins to make financial sense. Let alone constitutional sense. You know, that little thing he swore to uphold and protect, not destroy. Thanks for asking!

What part of inheriting two wars and a great recession, don't you get?

Iraq - has done NOTHING to bring our boys home any faster than Bush did

Afghanistan - Has escalated it, our own generals estimate it will take 10 years with 5,000 more troops lost before we can leave.

Great Recession - Has done ZERO to help, and has continued the same FAILED policies of BUSH that led to this mess.

That is the short answer

Iraq - has done NOTHING to bring our boys home any faster than Bush did

Afghanistan - Has escalated it, our own generals estimate it will take 10 years with 5,000 more troops lost before we can leave.

Great Recession - Has done ZERO to help, and has continued the same FAILED policies of BUSH that led to this mess.

That is the short answer

Za is right, and let's note that he commented equally on Mr. Bush and his war. Mr. Obama is turning out to be Bush light. Yes, he has a brain, yes, he is smarter than Bush, yes, he is equally owned by corporate America and is not getting at the real problems that confront us. Despite the news desire to paint him as an uber liberal, one only has to look at his staff and what he is doing to realize that he is just as inculcated by Wall Street as Bush was. Time to throw the bum out, along with about 1/2 our Senators including most of the GOP and a good bit of the Dems.


Questions for the day... The Russians had 350,000 troops in Afghanistan, and got their lunch ate. How many troops do we have there?

What is the difference between Cambodia and Pakistan? This one I'll answer; nothing, we conducted an illegal war in Cambodia, and now we're conducting an illegal war in Pakistan...

And we wonder why the world dislikes us so.

The part where fixing his inheritance ends and "fundamentally changing America" begins to make financial sense. Let alone constitutional sense. You know, that little thing he swore to uphold and protect, not destroy. Thanks for asking!

This is a great point, except that you gave a pass to Bush on the same thing. Either we support America's values, or we don't. It isn't a matter of "our team is in" therefore it's okay if they don't protect our Constitution and way of life.

This is a great point, except that you gave a pass to Bush on the same thing. Either we support America's values, or we don't. It isn't a matter of "our team is in" therefore it's okay if they don't protect our Constitution and way of life.

Yes Lyle, we agree on that.

I believe we have 60-70K troops in Afghanistan, Obama is increasing it to 100K if I am not mistaken.

One difference between us and USSR, We do let areas control themselves. specially in the North with the Northern Alliance. Unfortunately, the Taliban has taken control of large areas and we don't have the personnel to oust them.

Remember, the people of Afghanistan don't even know who lives on the other side of the mountain.

This is a great point, except that you gave a pass to Bush on the same thing. Either we support America's values, or we don't. It isn't a matter of "our team is in" therefore it's okay if they don't protect our Constitution and way of life.

Thanks, I thought it was a great point too!

I never gave Bush a pass on destroying the constitution Lyle.

The part where fixing his inheritance ends and "fundamentally changing America" begins to make financial sense. Let alone constitutional sense. You know, that little thing he swore to uphold and protect, not destroy. Thanks for asking!

What part of the constitution is he destroying?