GeorgiaDon

"We have to pass it to find out what's in it" didn't come from the Republicans, sport. The complete quote is "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy." Although snipping quotes so as to change the meaning is "business as usual" for some, it is still dishonest and the practice of those who can't make an intellectually honest counter-argument. The actual quote refers to the difficulty of explaining the actual content of the bill in the face of the barrage of Republican lies and distortions (death panels, for example). This sort of practice is all the rage in the ads that are running this campaign season: sort through everything the candidate has ever said and find a few words you can snip out and perhaps splice together to change the meaning 180 degrees. Romney did this in a TV ad than ran in November. What Obama really said was : "Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Romney clipped it to make it appear that Obama said "If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.” Ann Coulter does this sort of thing routinely. It's lying, plain and simple, and the only purpose is to recruit people to your camp by deception. I suppose it says a lot about conservative politics that it has become so dependent on the routine practice of bald-faced lying to win adherents. Sport. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Can you offer some examples of important things you have had to give up because of political correctness? I'm genuinely curious. Otherwise I would have just made some smart-assed crack about how that "Emancipation Proclamation" messed up your lifestyle or something. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So what should, in your opinion, be the maximum length of a law? If it came out of this White House, would you bother to read it even if it was only, say, 5 pages, or would you just swallow whole cloth the Rush Limbaugh version? I very much suspect the latter. It seems to me that here in the US no law can be simply stated, as our whole legal system is based on the premise that enforcement must hinge on the exact letter of the law so virtually every contingency must be anticipated and spelled out. Other countries have systems that give courts more leeway to interpret the clear intent or spirit of the law, so laws can be stated more succinctly. For example: Simple law: Thou shall not kill. US version: Thou shall not murder (1). (1) Murder refers to the killing (as defined in paragraph 3 subsections 1-12) of a human being (as defined in paragraph 5 subsections 1-35), except under exclusions defined in paragraphs 12-378. And so on and on for another 1,000 pages. The principles of "Obamacare" can be written out on one page. The specific mechanics of how those principles are to be achieved takes a lot more. Perhaps it could have been done more succinctly, but then many more specifics and details would have to be left implied rather than stated, and you (and those of your political leaning) would still complain you don't know what's in the bill. I recall that the federal legislation establishing universal health care access in Canada was pretty simple (and short). It just mandated that every Province (equivalent to State for those who are so UScentric they don't know what a Province is) had to establish their own system by such-and-such a date. Details were left to the individual provinces, but the coverage had to be comprehensive and universal. That might have been a better approach in the US, but due to constitutional issues of federal vs state powers it would be impossible. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

He's criticized because people disagree with his policies, and I disagree that it's with the same vitriol as Gingrich evokes. When a candidate states publicly that US law should conform to the laws of a specific religion (Christianity, and more particularly Catholicism), then they truly do want to change the fundamental nature of America in ways that directly violate the constitution and infringe on the freedom of everyone who doesn't already follow that specific religion. If someone runs on a platform of establishing America as a religious theocracy you can be sure I (and many others) will object strenuously. Santorum has, of course, the right to choose for himself how he will live his life, and as far as I know he does abide by his principles. Gingrich's behavior (as opposed to his words) shows over and over that he will say or do whatever seems to him at the moment to be most expeditious at gaining power or pussy for himself. He will sell out anyone if he can benefit. I don't know what policies he will promote should he be elected, as his word is of no value and the only predictor of his decisions is "what's in it for him". I hear over and over from certain posters here in SC (including yourself, rather prominently) that Obama's policies are anti-America and anti-capitalism. That disagreement with policy very obviously extends to a very personal animosity against Obama. I have no doubt that if he were to run into a burning building and carry 10 kids to safety on his back, you and certain others would be here in SC accusing him of setting the fire, corruptly allowing the building contractor to evade fire codes, or of planting the kids where they were really not in danger so he just appear to be the hero. Maybe it's your own inability to separate disagreement with policy from personal hatred that leads you to see vitriol where there is only disagreement. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Agreed. That's why I find that whole "leader of the free world" thing so annoying. No-one but US citizens can vote for the US President, so why do Americans think their president is leader of anyone else? Do they not believe Canadians/Brits/Germans/etc can select their own leader? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It'd be pretty funny to see a "cougar" mascot that actually is a middle-aged woman. The University of South Carolina women's basketball team are the "Lady Cocks" (the football team are the "Game Cocks"). Breaks me up every time I hear that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Before lending too much weight to this topic, it's instructive to consider the source. Here's something about "Transparency International", the source of the "Corruption Perceptions Index": "The Corruption Perceptions Index has received criticisms over the years. The main one stems from the difficulty in measuring corruption, which by definition happens behind the scenes. The Corruption Perceptions Index therefore needs to rely on third-party survey which have been criticized as potentially unreliable. Data can vary widely depending on the public perception of a country, the completeness of the surveys and the methodology used. The second issue is that data cannot be compared from year to year because Transparency International uses different methodologies and samples every year. This makes it difficult to evaluate the result of new policies.[7] The Corruption Perceptions Index authors replied to these criticisms by reminding that the Corruption Perceptions Index is meant to measure perception and not "reality". (Quote from here, underlining for emphasis done by me.) Note that even the authors of the index claim it measures perception, not reality. My take is that this is a result of politics becoming so polarized in this country. When Bush was in office, there were complaints of crony capitalism re Haliburton. With Obama in office, we see complaints from the other side of the aisle re Solyndra (as an example). The index measures smoke, not fire. Ask yourself this: when was the last time you had to pay a bribe to a government official get a business license, or a business contract, or anything? The countries with the best rating tend to be countries where people have a high degree of trust in the government in general (New Zealand, the Scandinavian countries). Look at the countries closer to the bottom of the list. Those are countries where you have to pay a bribe to be able to take a piss. Although things are not perfect in the US (consider Blagojevich), they are pretty clean over all. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wasn't aware that the oil companies paid to build and maintain roads, or enforce laws (Highway Patrol). That's why I like Speakers Corner, I learn stuff all the time here. I would have thought that a system of "user pays" would appeal to a Libertarian. And, it's easier to pay at the pump than it is to stop for a toll booth every couple of miles. Don't know how to ensure that electric vehicles pay their share for road upkeep, though. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I didn't know that. Physician: heal thyself! By the way , you wouldn't have been "Peaceful Jeffrey" or "DesertAttorney" in a previous internet life, by any chance? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well, personally I find hypocrisy to be an unattractive character trait regardless of the political slant of the hypocrite. Mr. Gingrich's history is well known to everybody. Can you remind me who Clinton set up an inquisition on, then tried to impeach, for activities that he was himself engaged in at the same time? I've quite forgotten any such incidents. I don't think I have ever said I approved of Clinton's behavior re "zippergate". I don't think they rose to the level of impeachment, but of course others (perhaps Lawrocket) may disagree. If Newt has (had?) a propensity to deceive those he claimed to be closest to so he could dip his wick in any besotted campaign worker who'd flop on her back and spread her legs for him, that just makes him a cad. It's the fact that he would seek to advance his own career by attacking others over behavior he is himself engaged in (and so must find excusable) that exposes his real moral compass (unadulterated self-interest) and renders him an exceeding poor choice for president. The same compass is evident when he takes money to "consult" (i.e. lobby) for Fannie and Freddie, then turns around and shits on them when that becomes more expedient. Surely a party that claims to represent a majority in a country with a voting-eligible population of over 217 million can find a decent selection of candidates who are both intelligent and not scumbags? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I know a few people who use sites like Megaupload legitimately to park large data files so research collaborators can access the data. Don't know if they specifically have used Megaupload, or just something similar. I wonder, if the site gets shut down then do all the legitimate users lose access to their own data? Of course they have it backed up, but it'd still be quite disruptive. When the US government seizes failing banks, they don't just shut them down and deny depositors access to their accounts, they send in people with expertise to clean them up. I suppose there's no way to do that with these internet operations, develop tools to ID and delete specific accounts that contain significant amounts of pirated material while preserving access for legitimate clients? I realize there's significant legal barriers involved in dealing with off-shore sites, but it sure sucks for legitimate users to be penalized the same as (and because of) the illegitimate users. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Since the "man" makes his living in the public eye, I know enough about him to know he does not have a history of faithfulness to his word or his principles. I don't need to know more than that to know he is unsuitable as a leader of this country. I suppose every mass murderer, ruthless despot, etc has their "good points" and people who will testify they have a "well-meaning heart". Doesn't mean it would be a good idea to make them your drinking buddy, or president. Yes it does. Has the RNC repudiated it loudly? Has Bush repudiated it loudly? If not, I suppose it suggests the DNC is more honorable and more truthful than the RNC, at least on this matter. That anyone would not repudiate it also speaks loudly. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Oh well, that settles it then. Poor little Newt, such an honorable man to attract such emnity. A modern day Job, I tell you. Just so we're clear here, that particular smear campaign had nothing to do with the DNC. It was a product of the Bush campaign, and had Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it. So now Gingrich, the high priest of the politics of personal destruction, is now complaining about being hoist on his own petard? Would this be the same Newt who lead the interrogation of Clinton over personal matters that we now learn are irrelevant to the leadership of the country (but only irrelevant when applied to Newt, I suppose), while he was, by his own admission, at the very same time fucking his campaign worker behind his wife's back? "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!" Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And does this mean Romney is still the only guy to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, even though he really lost Iowa by the best count available? If Bush won Florida in 2000 (he did), then Santorum won Iowa. Unfortunately, that 44 vote swing would have been worth a bit more to him 2 weeks ago than it is now. Herman Cain is winning on Saturday! In Iowa, no delegates are assigned because of the votes. National convention delegates are assigned during the Iowa Convention. The caucus votes have an effect on the assignments but are not binding. It is a strange system Then add to this the fact that the Iowa Republican Party now looks like a bunch of idiot back woods hicks for this mess. It is ridicules And I contacted them and told them that their actions have made them, the Republican Party of Iowa and Iowa look stupid And they do Thanks for the info Marc. Appreciate it. For my part, I think this situation really just shows that it is difficult to do a careful highly accurate job of even relatively straightforward things (like counting votes) under the pressure of artificially short timelines driven by the 24/7 news cycle. Generally, if there is a real difference between results for the various candidates, a small error factor won't change anything. In the present case, where the vote was so close, it did matter. We would all be a lot better off if we could cut people some slack and allow people reasonable time to do the job right. Unfortunately everything becomes a partisan issue used to bludgeon the opposition. The failure of everyone except Romney and Paul to get on the Virginia ballot is a different matter, as everybody knew the rules and had as much time as they wanted to invest in meeting those requirements. When Gingrich (for example) fails to meet those requirements, despite being a Virginia resident (!), then goes to court (against his own party!) to complain that the rules aren't fair and to try to get them changed after the fact (!!!), it says a lot about his character. Rules are only good when they limit the other guy, but they're unfair when they get in my way! Wah wah wah. Narcissistic idiot. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

If I recall correctly, capital gains earned when you sell your house are deferred if you use the profit to buy a more expensive house as your primary residence. That seems to be an interesting model for business income. Capital gains reinvested in the business get taxed at some lower rate (say, the current 15%). Capital gains used to buy food/a yacht/etc for personal use gets taxed as ordinary income. That way mutual funds etc will still get that tax rate that is supposed to encourage investment*, but hedge fund managers will have to pay taxes at the same rate as their secretaries on the money they take from the fund to finance their personal lifestyle. *It would also be interesting to see some real data that supports the idea that a lower tax rate is necessary to encourage investment. My understanding is that rates of investment are no higher now than they were before the capital gains tax was reduced to 15%. The point of the reduction was to encourage business investment; that can be regarded as an experiment, and the data can be analyzed. If the experiment did not yield the desired result (increased investment) it should be considered a failure, and the rate should revert to what it was before. Of course, this does not allow for matters of political influence and leverage, where "what is fair" becomes "class envy". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK in principle. But how do you suggest dealing with the fact that other governments subsidize targeted industries to enable them to capture international markets. Does the US just cede every industry that China or whoever decides to "invest" in? Also isn't our military system just a big government subsidy for certain industries? How many aerospace companies do you think would survive if it weren't for our "need" to maintain a military bigger than the rest of the world combined? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Since you're evidently incapable of explaining whatever this random clothes-moth of an "idea" is fluttering around in your brain, I suppose the notion that the Iowa Republicans are incapable of even organizing a functional caucus wins by default. If you pair that with the observation that only two candidates were able to follow the rules set by the Virginia Republican Party and get on the primary there, I'd say your party is showing themselves to be incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time. And you want to run the country? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's pathetic really. What's pathetic is Congress creating an artificial deadline that made it impossible to properly vet the proposal. By rejecting the proposal at this time but allowing for a resubmission, the White House just buys time to properly investigate the benefits and risks, obtain public input, and if necessary propose modifications. The Republican approach of "full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes" is just political game-playing. If Obama had caved and approved the project without having it checked out, the Republicans could (and would) have played up their ability to order the president to jump to their command, and if any problems developed down the road all the shit would be on Obama's head. Of course he had no recourse but to reject it. It's clear to me that it's the Republicans who killed this project (for now) by using it as a political club to try to beat up on the President. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Did you read the complete article? This device, a temporary suspension of payments into the G-Fund, has been done six times over the past 20 years. And that makes it right? Apparently so, but only when a Republican is in the White House. Otherwise it's evil incarnate. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Ignorance is bliss Ignorance of what? Why don't you enlighten us? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I wonder why the vote tally in 8 precincts will "never be certified"? How come an 8-vote lead was a "win" for Romney, but a 34 vote lead for Santorum is a "tie"? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

True But this then beggs the question People bitch about big this and big that Why never Big Education? The "publish or perish" mandate has been around for a lot longer than since the '70s. The idea of linking research and teaching is rooted in the concept that doing publishable research forces the teacher to stay current with developments in their field, which is passed on to students in the lecture hall, and on the other hand having to teach forces the teacher to think/read more broadly than in just their specialized research focus. Besides teaching undergraduates, I also have to train Masters and PhD and Postdoctoral level students, and at that level although there is some classroom work it is mostly gaining research experience, which means that I have to be able to provide the resources for these students to do publishable work. They have to learn the published literature in their field, and learn how to design rigorous experiments that test reasonable hypotheses using the most appropriate (which is often the most current) experimental techniques. When these students go to get a job, they have to be able to point to published papers to be competitive; everyone applying will have a degree, but it's the applicants with several published papers in the most selective journals who will actually get a second look. In my field, I can expect to pay $100,000+ just for reagents, animal care charges, and DNA sequencing for each published paper (this does not include student stipends/salary), and a PhD student is expected to publish at least 2-3 papers. I get no money from the University to support this, all the funding must be obtained from outside sources such as the American Heart Association, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), or the National Science Foundation (NSF). Currently NIH has the most money to fund research, and at the moment they are funding less than 10% of proposals. Each proposal takes months to put together (mostly working evenings and weekends, as the "work day" is full with teaching and other duties), and must be backed up with extensive preliminary experiments to prove the ideas are sound and there are no technical hurdles. These preliminary experiments take a year or more to do, and cost upwards of a couple of 100s of thousands of dollars (which must be scrounged out of any other grants one may have, as again the University has no funds to support this), and upwards of 90% of those proposals do not get funded. No grants means no money to support student research. The escalation of tuition costs stems more from the fact that state funding for universities has declined dramatically in recent years, while student enrollment has continued to grow and there has been no relation of the expectations of the job. The college I am affiliated with is receiving about 37% less in real dollars from the state compared to only 5 years ago, yet we are expected to continue to teach all our courses, admit the majority of applicants, and train graduate students. Universities have been forced to rely more and more on outside sources, mainly overhead charged on research grants, so the pressure to get such grants is even greater. The universities are in a no-win situation, as state legislators are insistent that we can't reduce enrollment but they refuse to pay for it. Politicians get elected these days on promises of lower taxes, and the public is all too ready to believe they can get the same level of services as they used to without having to pay for it. If tuition has been skyrocketing put the blame where it lies, voters who elect politicians who make impossible promises just to get elected. Also, there is a wide range of choices available in higher education. If you don't like big universities, there are a lot of small private colleges that promise (and deliver) lots of personal attention to each student. Don't expect them to be cheap, though, they'll cost you several times the tuition of large public universities. Your choice. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hi Andy, I think I get where you are coming from. One problem that I see, though, is that those who believe in Creationism would likely not be very happy about the treatment it would get in a science class, even if the instructor were to be careful to avoid the topic of the existence/nonexistence of God. If I were to be compelled to teach creationism/intelligent design alongside evolutionary biology, the only possible outcome would be a meticulous exposition of why creationism is not science and why it explains nothing on a useful level. I would also be compelled to raise questions such as why God bothered to create all those nasty disease-causing parasites, why He made women so that they suffer a much higher rate of death in childbirth than any other primate, etc. The only possible way to make creationism appear to have equal footing would be to dumb down evolutionary biology to "From goo to you through the zoo" so it can stand alongside "God did it", and that I would never do. Frankly, students could very well come out of such a class with very serious doubts about their faith that they didn't have coming in. While that might not be an undesirable outcome (in the sense that faith is deeper when people have actually thought about what their beliefs entail, instead of blindly parroting of dogma), I suspect parents and the public (at least here in Georgia) would see things differently. There is also a first amendment issue to consider. The courts have ruled repeatedly (and correctly IMHO) that creationism and intelligent design are inherently religious beliefs. Since there is no way to contrast creationism with evolution without having creationism come off much the worst, doing so at a state-funded university (or any publicly funded school) could and probably would be challenged as a state-funded attack on a religion, which would be unconstitutional. I once informally suggested teaching a course that would present the arguments for creationism/young Earth etc, one at a time, each argument followed by a rebuttal from a scientist in an appropriate discipline (biology/geology/astronomy). I was told such a course would certainly be challenged on constitutional grounds, so I didn't pursue it any further. It's a shame really, as it would be a great vehicle for presenting the explanative power of science vs the lack of any power of creationism to explain anything beyond "God did it, and mere humans can't begin to understand how He did it". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Right or wrong relative to what? From a mechanistic (i.e. evolutionary) point of view, behaviors that increase the chances of successful reproduction (not only producing offspring, but having those offspring survive to also successfully reproduce) will be favored. For us humans, our extended childhood means we have to survive for a long time to even get to reproductive age, and then we have to survive for many more years to rear our children to the point where they are self sufficient. An excessively violent nature would result in a lifespan that is too short for successful reproduction for most individuals. On the other hand, being so passive as to fail to defend oneself is also not a viable strategy. Our basic nature, which is to cooperate with one another to a point but resort to violence in self defense or sometimes to capture needed resources, is easily explained as being optimal in the sense that it maximizes the probability of successful reproduction for most individuals. This also accounts for our ability to live in social groups where we can work collaboratively towards harvesting resources, child rearing, and defense. Social behavior over long lifespans selects for the ability to communicate (language) as well as the ability to form alliances leading to dominance within the social group. The need for parental care of children for an unusually long time (far more than any other animal species) also selects for males that stick around and help care for the family, which accounts for pair-bonding behaviors that enhance mate bonding, at least for long enough to get children to the point where they are somewhat self sufficient. Other species, with different life histories, have different optimal behaviors. Perhaps, but that isn't a testable proposition one way or the other. The "absolute morality" you speak of is really very limited: work together when it's to your advantage, don't fight/kill unless there is something to be gained that is worth risking your life for, do your best to provide for your family. Nothing about this can't be explained by simple survival of the fittest. That doesn't mean there is no God, it just means that since there is a logical natural explanation for "human nature" or "morality" you can't point to that as proof that God must exist. For that to be the case, you would have to show that there is some aspect of human nature that is invariably expressed by every individual, and that works contrary to reproductive success (=fitness in the biological sense). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

More specifically, pain meds. He was 58 and she's 18? Apparently he died Christmas day. She's having a bad month, glad it wasn't worse for her. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)