I was stunned by your quotation of Bush. I had never heard anything like that before and agree that such a statement coming from a sitting President (or even a former President) would be very disturbing. I followed the link, read the article, and noticed that the author did not cite ANY sources of this comment. I noticed he also attached outrageous statements to other administration officials, also without citing any references. I searched the internet could not find any other sources for any of the author's claims, other than repetition of the same article you linked to. I must conclude that the writer of that article is not telling the truth and you have been duped. If there had been any truth to this kind of statement, other media would have latched onto this. I am not saying there aren't numerous other reasons to despise Bush, it simply appears that this one didn't actually happen.

They are NOT stupid. They are corrupt. The voting positions of politicians are based almost entirely on campaign contributions, not on any moral or logical consideration. That is why I feel that modifying campaign finance laws so that you can only give money to a candidate for whom you can cast a vote would go a long ways toward cleaning up this mess. This would mean that corporations and unions and foreign individuals could no longer contribute to any candidate because those entities cannot cast a vote.

Thanks for the great explanation. By "our" government I meant the United States.

Regarding robust code, I was thinking of the Linux community when I suggested open sourcing the climate software...I am sure this statement will be debated but I perceive that the Linux community effort produces continuous improvement and it was that kind of concept I felt could unify more people in the global warming debate; at a minimum I would hope it would prevent the current science credibility issue.

I am not ready to accept that there was no dishonesty in the task. The e-mails clearly call out tricks to suppress undesirable results as well as methods to dilute the credibility of dissenting opinions.

At any rate, thanks for taking the time to respond and broaden my understanding of the academic process associated with this issue. We all want a solution and the confidence that our taxes are spent wisely

The best way to restore healthy debate on climate change science is to open source everything...the data, the source code for the computer models, and the methodology for how the data is collected: specific locations of data collection (is it a rural area, a parking lot in a city, on a school roof, in direct sunlight or in the shade), date and time of day (noon, midnight, 5pm), weather conditions at the time it is collected (sunny, raining, under a snow drift), age of the equipment (mercury thermometer installed in 1953 or digital sensor device). All of these factors would influence a simple temperature reading. Heck there are probably dozens of other factors that I am not considering.

Since our government is PAYING for so much of this research it should be no problem to PUBLISH all of these details and let everyone debate from a common framework. However, I believe our government has an agenda and therefore won't ever take such a logical approach.

While we are at it, let's do the same thing for how inflation, unemployment, public health statistics, education metrics, and poverty rates are calculated.

How is that working out for Michigan?

You know...this article would make a great basis for rebooting the movie "The Blob"

You raise some interesting points. I have a friendly disagreement with you on these to some extent...regarding term limits, if it takes more than two terms for a representative to thoroughly understand how to contribute to running a state government then perhaps the state government is already too complex, or there is no incentive to make state programs efficient. I imagine it is even worse in that both of these cases are true. With regards to illegal alien crackdown, let me first commend you for using the phrase "illegal alien" instead of "undocumented worker" or some other euphamism. Arizona has a particularly tough challenge in this regard due to its proximity to a national border. I admire Arizona's efforts to do something, and better options may result from studying the unintended consequences of the crackdown. However, I think going back to the way things were (I think you are suggesting that we essentially not enforce some or most illegal alien legislation) prior to the current crackdown is akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I believe most people hold few grudges against legal immigrants and reserve their wrath for illegal immigration and the perception that many of our elected officials and peacekeepers deliberately ignore enforcement of the law. Our prisons are full of a disproportionate number of illegal aliens, and prison costs are substantial. Our hospital emergency rooms are full of a disproportionate number of illegal aliens, and hospital costs are substantial. Those costs are borne by us honest folk, and it is very easy to resent having those costs dilute state budgets, money that already is poorly managed by our elected officials.

Obama's plan simply will not work because he plans to mix freight and passenger rail routes. I would not call the examples in Japan and France a _financial_ success, but they are indeed impressive technologically. However, neither of those systems would work if they did not dedicate their tracks to passenger transportation. Freight would slow everything down dramatically.

I suppose Obama is starting to realize this. You can speak passionately on just about anything, but when the ball lands in your lap and you are the one who is resposible for making the decision, perhaps what was once so black and white is now not as easily labeled as such.

I was very disappointed with Bush, but I am becoming quite frightened by Obama's lack of real experience. By the time the next Presidential election rolls around, Obama will have held that job longer than any other job he has had.

And enough with the serial apologizing about America...virtually every world leader sees that not as a sign of America's evolution into a better citizen of the world, they see it as a weakness to be exploited.

The overwhelming majority of judges, like the majority of jurors, are savvy enough to understand and deal properly with the ramifications of the information age and how it can impact legal proceedings. But, like some jurors, there are some judges who have not adapted to the information age and fail to control the juries or the attorneys in the cases they hear. Judge Ito was completely ill-equipped to handle the television and celebrity angle of the O.J. criminal trial, so it is no surprise that some judges today are struggling to comprehend and deal with Twitter, Facebook, Google, iPhones, Blackberries, and so forth.

I am not so sure that all of this is a bad thing. I now perceive, for good or for bad, that criminal defense lawyers often have no trouble crossing the line from "guarantee this defendant a fair trial" to "set this defendant free no matter the cost". Yes, I want an aggressive lawyer defending me if I go to trial, but I also want ethical lawyers debating the case before an ethical and informed judge. And if those parties can't be ethical, then I surely hope the jury is smart enough to see the truth and decide accordingly.

NASCAR!!!

I am hoping they can apply the results of this research to finding brains in Senators and Congressmen

What legitimate benefit do these machines provide? Voting is such an incredible privilege. When will people wake up and realize that these ridiculous machines, motor voter registration, same-day registration, and similar garbage do nothing but dilute the power of the legitimate vote?