Yes, lets base our choice of president on emotion. Lets chuck out rationalism in favor of emotionalism.

And yet millions of Americans will use solely emotion when they pull the lever for Obama.

Which is fine. I just wish they would stop pretending otherwise.

There is no reason whatever to believe that the Internet would have grown in any way other than it did. It is based on protocols placed in the public domain. Without that step it would not have grown as it has.

I'm confused, are you saying that the internet would or would not be the same had it been designed by commercial interests?

Yes I know, but is your argument that we would never have the internet save for military research efforts? It is sort of like saying we'd never have the assembly line if it weren't for Henry Ford.

No, but it would have been slower. In most of these technologies, the gains weren't immediately apparent, and the start-up research costs were enormous.

I was running some errands and got to listen to part of Hillary Clinton’s convention speech, and what a typical mish-mash of nonsense and pandering platitudes. Change we can believe in? Please, spare me.

Well, I eagerly await Steve's nearly identical critique of the RNC next week--or is it just Democrats that are full of nonsense and platitudinous?

No, I expect a column next week from Steve about how realistic and sedate, yet eloquent and visionary the RNC speakers were, and how they were nothing like the self-important windbags at the DNC, and how Republicans alone represent the true "change we can believe in." No, I'm sure Steve won't have any problem recycling that phrase and applying it to conservatives. It's just that right now it's blowhard-y because the Dems did their gig first.

Presidents have very little control over the economy and those policy tools they do have access to are imprecise and clumsy. Will the economy strengthen while Obama is in the White House? Yeah, almost surely. Would it strengthen if McCain is in the White House? Yeah, almost surely.

Oh, I see. Now that the economy is in the tank, suddenly Presidents have no control over the economy. But when the gettin' (the goin'?) was good, well, conservatives were falling all over themselves to heap praise upon GWB and his great visionary policies. Of course, when the goin' (the gettin'?) was good with Bill Clinton, well, suddenly Presidents have no control over the economy--but in any event every good conservative knows that it was Reagan's economic policies that were responsible for our great economy during Clinton's term.

Funny how Democratic Presidents seem to be the only ones simultaneously powerless over the economy but fully responsible for its poor condition.

So you should be. Likely we'd ahve come up with something without the kind of issues we've been subject to... IPv4 wouldnt have even been in the picture, for example at least in that form. The securty issues, etc. If there's a buck to be made, the solutions would have happened.

Yeah, because IPv4 has been such a terrible investment......

If the internet had been designed by commercial entities, instead of Darpa, it's very structure would be very different. Your ISP would also be your content provider, just like they are for TV. What do you do if your TV provider doesn't host a show you want to watch? Compare that to what you do if your ISP doesn't host a website you want to visit.

The internet is a "cloud" because that's what Darpa needed, to be able to connect point A to point Z, with multiple routes (B->C, C->D, D->B, etc) through which to do so. This makes it very hard to monopolize and monetize the internet, which is not ideal for commercial entities. If commercial interests had designed it, both A and Z would have to be a customer of (ISP)B in order to communicate over one of the B[] nodes. They're already trying to do this (A=you, Z=Google, B=Verizon), which is why net neutrality is important.

As a person who is on the net many hours every day dealing with it's various problems, I wonder often what we cost ourselves in the way of design because of the governmental involvement.

The internet wasn't designed by the government, it was designed by the military and by academics, they designed it to fit their purposes, and it works remarkably well for the rest of us too.

I'm still doubtful. We might not have the internet we have now, but that we'd have nothing? I dunnno, I'm still doubtful on that one.

So you should be. Likely we'd ahve come up with something without the kind of issues we've been subject to... IPv4 wouldnt have even been in the picture, for example at least in that form. The securty issues, etc. If there's a buck to be made, the solutions would have happened. As a person who is on the net many hours every day dealing with it's various problems, I wonder often what we cost ourselves in the way of design because of the governmental involvement.

And as to the folks making the argument that the government was alone responsible for the internet, (Al Gore's claims to one side for the moment) are they really considering that they're pushing for Military spending? (Chuckle)

Usually your comments are well thought out.

Not so much this time.

Michael,

Right. I don't think Bush has done anything magical to speed the recovery of the economy. Did cutting taxes help...mmmm probably. But so what, that is straight out of Keynesian Economics for Presidents 101. He also increased spending and ran a deficit. Again, straight out of Keynesian Economics for Presidents 101. Nothing shocking here, really.

At the same time, continuing to saddle the country with additional debt even after the economy was growing...not a good move for the long term. Tossing on the big "gimme" for the old farts via the Medicare drug program, again not good for the long term outlook for the economy. Add on the various energy bills, highway bills, and all the additional regulatory nonsense...and it isn't good.

So little ability to have a short term impact on the economy save for clumsy and imprecise tools.

Dan,

Which is it? Do Presidents affect the economy or no? I'm having trouble following logic that states the economy will recover even if Mickey Mouse is in office, despite the fact that it has failed to do so to this point because Bush has been in office.

The economy has recovered. Since November 2001 the economy has been in an expansionary phase.

JT,

What will the candidates do about that [drugs and prison overcrowding]?

Nothing, both candidates love the War on Drugs, and both parties have willingly sacrificed civil liberties to appear tough on crime. In short, both parties, for whatever reason, have been heading to the gutter on this one for a long time now.

Dave,

I think that's the case.

I'm still doubtful. We might not have the internet we have now, but that we'd have nothing? I dunnno, I'm still doubtful on that one.

Sam,

Now what Plato had trouble getting his head around was how well, in the end, democracy works (even given the excesses and dumb actions it sometimes leads to).

Really? That is why we don't have problems with a huge impending shortfall in Medicare. Why budge surpluses seem to be so persistent. That earmarks are on the decline. That there is no revolving door between the Hill and K Street.

Oh...wait...sorry, got those all precisely backwards.

Wasn't it Winston Churchill, that big fat idiot, who wrote that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others that have been tried? What the Hell did that jerk know?

I can't wait.

Dan,
Presidents have very little ability to improve the economy, which I believe was the main point in Mr. Verdon's post. That they have the ability to ruin it, I think, is not in question.

It just drives me crazy. Presidents have very little control over the economy and those policy tools they do have access to are imprecise and clumsy.

Will the economy strengthen while Obama is in the White House? Yeah, almost surely. Would it strengthen if McCain is in the White House? Yeah, almost surely. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it would strengthen even if Mickey Mouse were elected president.

And yet, later in the comments you say...

So yes, without President Bush in office the economy would have recovered.

Which is it? Do Presidents affect the economy or no? I'm having trouble following logic that states the economy will recover even if Mickey Mouse is in office, despite the fact that it has failed to do so to this point because Bush has been in office.

Bad news, the economy entered an expansionary phase in November 2001. So yes, without President Bush in office the economy would have recovered.

Doubtful.
The Economy was in an expansion phase in the Carter years, too. And you see what he did with that.

But then, why post about it?

Another "hey platitudes, GET OFF MY LAWN!" post.