nerdgirl

For what you’re describing (2-day hike up & down Mount Washington), I would vote “doesn’t really matter” that much. Broken-in hiking boots with ankle support are *much* *much* *much* more important for that hike, imo ... or most stuff in New England. Depending on which route you go up (Huntington or Tuckerman Ravine vs. Lion’s Head), an internal frame may be more stable for scrambling over rocks because they conform more to your body and some, not all, have internal pieces that you can mold/bend to exactly match the curve of your back. I’ve done what you’ve described with an external frame pack – I was a poor grad student & borrowed one. It was supposed to be a 4-day full traverse of the Presidentials, but it got shortened because my hiking partner didn’t break in her boots. For longer backpacking trips, if you’re planning to use this as a start for future trips, or thinking about investing in a good pack, I’d agree with those voting for an internal frame. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Then why do you keep replying? Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, that why it's the PBR - President's Budget Request. Congress approves (that's the resolution bills) and appropriates - two different functions. Still doesn't obviate what I wrote or that practical reality that the Executive Branch effectively writes & does the heavy lifting for the budget. I really don't want Congress writing the budget for DoD; do you? /Marg p.s. as I've written before, the real divide in DC is not Republican-Democrat. At a simplified level but with a critical spark of truth: the Executive Branch and Departments think it’s “their” money that Congress won’t give them (to execute programs, etc), and Congress thinks it’s “their” money that the Executive Branch won’t expend they way they want (as representatives of the American citizens). The “Beltway bandits” (i.e., contractors) play each off of the other. Everyone thinks that they're doing the 'right' thing for the taxpayer and the nation. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes, the President (Executive Branch) does write the budget. It's the PBR and everything eventually goes through OMB, which is part of the Office of the President. Every year. Congress takes the PBR, listens to briefs, and then Congress appropriates. They will add a little and subtract a little ('zeros out' a few programs, typically less than 2 dozen out of literally thousands). The vast majority of the work is done within the Executive Branch, e.g., do you really want Congress writing the budget for the DoD? The Executive Branch writes the budget, and Congress approves it. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Spare me - y'all produce just as much as you're trying to claim the right does. The point that [idrankwhat] was making wasn't so much about partisanship, at least as I read it. It was a comment contrasting actually addressing a topic versus acknowledging that replies have nothing to do with the topic and instead are diversionary/mis-directing/inflammatory/silly, e.g., repetitively asking where I jump. Jim [n23x] also noted it concisely. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the primer on the types of paper.

Thanks for the detailed and specific response. I re-viewed it keeping in mind your comments (& others, like [jcd11235]'s). I agree with some of your remarks and some of his, disagree with some, and some I just appreciated hearing. Part of what I found useful about the video was it minimized normatives and tried to take, what I thought was as close to possible a 'just the facts' approach. Some of the graphics (the exploding bomb metaphor) I agree were sensationalized, like the caricature of the 'sub-prime' family. For conveying the basic concepts, do you agree that it's A LOT better (orders of magnitude) than the usual recycled "Blame the CRA" rhetoric that gets invoked? I'd like to see something down similarly w/r/t government policies changes from easing Glass-Steagall to Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to 1995 Truth in Lending Act. And something w/r/t role and impact of & impact on corporate governance. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Can I answer this one?!?!?!?!!? I have no doubt that you and many others here could. There is a lack of basic information and mis-information regarding who gets US foreign aid, what the amount is, and the form it takes. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I like this one: Google DJIA because it allows me to broaden or narrow the view. Wish I could find something similar - w/the same interactive capabilities - that extends back to 1900. Out of curiosity, I would like to see how the rise and fall of the Dow correlates with increase (& stagnation/decrease) in housing values for the nation overall & in Top 5 (or Top 10) housing markets over the last 10 years or so. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It’s very hard for me to notice whether you are ‘reading’ or not, as I’ve written before my psychic powers aren’t working. But you have now acknowledged that you are not making constructive replies; instead, when challenged you repetitively make comments reminiscent of the boys who chased me during 7th grade recess. (Will you be asking if I have ‘cooties’ next? )[/I] ------ ---- ----- But to get back on topic – both foreign aid and the Dow: The basic model for distributing foreign aid has not changed much over the last 50 years: the US sends foreign aid, largely military aid in the forms of US goods/equipment, to states from whom we want to buy political allegiance or favor. “During the Cold War, the U.S. instituted a policy of sending money to governments in poor countries to buy their political loyalty. While studies show that sending aid to foreign governments creates allegiance, it does not lead to economic progress [not sure if that assertion holds for Israel (whose leadership you asserted “starve the people we seek to help”), which has been very successful in terms of innovation and economic progress, but will put that aside for a moment - nerdgirl]. Instead, it makes governments in poor countries dependent on the U.S. rather than their citizens’ taxes.” Now buying allegiance is not necessarily a poor short-term tactic; heck, it has worked well in decreasing immediate violence by Sunni’s in Iraq (a tactic). Pay people to do things other than fight (especially against you in the latter case) until security and stability can be established. Excluding Iraq, the top recipients of US foreign aid (by a significant margin) are Israel, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Indonesia. Recognizing the importance of innovation (or “technology” or “knowledge,” i.e., Solow residual), a strategic balance between tactical investments for allegiance and fostering innovation (that leads to economic growth and increase in Dow): “small entrepreneurs can be bolstered with seed money in the range of $25,000. Small entrepreneurs create jobs, products and services that form the bedrock of flourishing democracies. With some tangible changes in its operation, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) within the World Bank Group could promote development through entrepreneurs. The World Bank should stop lending to governments and be absorbed into the reformed IFC.” In his last PBR, President Bush proposed doubling foreign aid. The choices now are what to do with it? And it’s not an either/or proposition, imo, but finding the right balance. In his inaugural speech and the speech in which the foundation of NATO was announced, President Harry S Truman spoke about the foreign aid in very idealistic rhetoric: “… In addition, we will provide military advice and equipment to free nations which will cooperate with us in the maintenance of peace and security. “Fourth, we must embark on a bold new program for making the benefits of our scientific advances and industrial progress available for the improvement and growth of underdeveloped areas. “The United States is pre-eminent among nations in the development of industrial and scientific techniques. The material resources which we can afford to use for the assistance of other peoples are limited. But our imponderable resources in technical knowledge are constantly growing and are inexhaustible. “I believe that we should make available to peace-loving peoples the benefits of our store of technical knowledge in order to help them realize their aspirations for a better life. And, in cooperation with other nations, we should foster capital investment in areas needing development. “Our aim should be to help the free peoples of the world, through their own efforts, to produce more food, more clothing, more materials for housing, and more mechanical power to lighten their burdens. “With the cooperation of business, private capital, agriculture, and labor in this country, this program can greatly increase the industrial activity in other nations and can raise substantially their standards of living.” Sounds idealistic, eh? Underlying the idealistic motivations of which President Truman spoke was also a reality of recognition of foreign aid as a means to create new markets. New markets of populations where people could buy things. New markets where people would buy American goods (predominantly in January 1949) and services. Sixty years ago President Truman recognized the connections between foreign aid and American economic growth, for which the Dow serves as an indicator. Some folks (proudly?) still don't know to what states their tax dollars go in 2009. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

This visualization of the credit crisis and all of the component parts (lowering Federal Reserve rate, securitization, credit default swaps, collateralization, leverage) is perhaps the most concise and accessible explanation I’ve encountered. So for all of the authorized and unauthorized armchair economists out there: What’s wrong with the explanation offered? What critical piece or contribution to the credit crisis does it over-simplify? What does it miss? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Do you have a relevent response ... or do you just want to flirt with me? No relevant response needed. I already made my point and don't really care what you think. What point? Confident assertions that are inaccurate? That's making a point? It's not about what I think or don't think. You are the only one trying to make it personal or about me (hence inquiry w/r/t flirting). It's about the inaccuracy of your assertions. Which countries receive foreign aid? What is the form that foreign aid takes? How much foreign aid do we actually budget? That's pretty basic. Technology enables an amazing amount of information. Technology has made accessing that information fabulously easy. At some point, it either becomes an issue of personal responsibility or stubborness in wanting to believe false concepts when folks won't even take advantage of something made as simple for them to access to find out the information, especially as easy as I did above. Okay, you keep shifting away from topical discussion & avoiding responding topically, so one had to start wondering. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. I'm beginning to understand your screen name. Where do you jump? Do you have a relevent response ... or do you just want to flirt with me? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Which countries do you think are 5 top recipients of US direct foreign aid (not even counting Iraq)? See p.18 for top foreign aid recipients 1995 & 2005. Do you want to pull back aid from the largest recipient? Are you asserting that the leadership of the single largest recipient of US foreign aid is starving its own people? In what form does that vast majority of that foreign aid take? (I.e., whose stuff are they buying with that foreign aid?) What percentage of the US’s GDP do you think goes to foreign aid? Here’s a intellectually provocative Op-Ed, originally published in The Washington Times, which argues: “if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.” I disagree with some of Rahn's underlying thesis, but he does provide something about which to think, regarding net benefit of ‘foreign aid.’ ---- -- ---- Americans in general (80%, think it’s more than 3% GDP, which is wrong; it’s 0.3-0.7% of federal budget) have over-estimated *by orders of magnitude* (e.g., 100x or 1000x) the amount of foreign aid we give, the form in which it takes, and are generally poorly informed w/r/t who are recipient states and who aren’t of the largest amount. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What specifically do you see as non-voluntary in there? (You had to know I would read the primary data. ) Section IV includes a number of components that I would have thought you would have supported? President Bush created the President's Volunteer Service Awards, which I earned in 2005 & 2006 (perhaps ironically, the volunteer judging I do for the Army's science fair program doesn't seem to count unless you are a federal employee, which doesn't stop me from doing it), and the USA Freedom Corps. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Going back to this premise. If that is so and the goal is high electorate participation, why would the argument not be to mandate voting? Some countries do. Otoh, maybe that lack of perceived value or directly measurable value *is* the problem. Voting has intangible value. It’s hard to put a monetary value on it. Maybe that goes more to the problem? How many people voted for the last American Idol finalist? Some large number of Americans found that ‘election’ to have some value. And they had to pay for it (yes?). If one asserts that the lack of participation in voting is its (lack of monetary) value, how about a proposal to charge for voting? What’s wrong with that? Why is that any less viable an option than those suggested in the OP? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Voting is the only "inalienable" right for which there is no reciprocity between individuals. Which makes it the only "inalienable" right which can be exercised selfishly [diabolically?] to the deleterious affect of others. Strained vernacular aside... "I can't kill you, you can't kill me. I can't silence you, you can't silence me. But if I get some friends together I can vote your ass to kingdom come." I’m not following your argument (doesn't mean I think it's wrong or accurate ... I'm just not following it). To me, it seems that reciprocity is established in that each individual has one vote. E.g., if you get some friends together to vote your ass to kingdom come, so can the other party. What your analogy does illustrate, at least as I’m reading it, is the importance of protecting the rights of the minority because the majority may try to remove rights of the minority with which it disagrees or that it doesn’t think they’ve earned. W/r/t reciprocity & voting, that is a discussion in some countries: the idea that non-citizens legally resident in a country have a right to vote. E.g., legal non-citizen permanent residents of New Zealand, legal non-citizen residents of Uruguay after 15 years, most European countries grant full reciprocity to permanent residents, and ROK allows residents after 3 years to vote in local elections. Although no US States currently permit legal non-citizens to vote in State or National elections, historically more than half did at some time in the past (mostly 1800s). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's a fundamental problem of the argument, if you can't show why the right to vote should be/is severable from other inalienable rights, then (1) either it isn't, or (2) the rest have to be earned as well. So far neither you nor anyone else has tried to pursue that line of reasoning. You might be able to construct a case. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’m going to steal a line from Tom Ricks – there is no pacifist branch of the US Army. Every member of the military, in the US at least, is supposed to be trained and prepared to engage in combat. Yes, I’m cognizant of the gender prohibitions of certain MOS positions, i.e., specialties within the armed services. Allegedly ‘non-combat’ positions like logistics & supply conveys have vividly been shown to not be separate from attack in fights against insurgents. More importantly, even ‘non-combat’ folks in the military are trained to fight. Sitting in front of an ICBM console deep underground in South Dakota is probably as far from direct combat as one may ever get (see ‘death wears bunny slippers' patch). Those are fundamentally offensive capabilities. If one can’t acknowledge that or if you have people charged with that responsibility who might be either outright opposed or hesitant to use it (due to whatever reasons), I don’t want them in those roles. Overseas the US military globally and Canadian forces in Afghanistan have and *will be* (see DoDD 3000.05 & 3000.07) doing a lot of things that aren’t traditional combat. Why and what that means/significance is a whole ‘nother subject. *Exactly* Mythologizing any time period or group is rarely accurate. If it appeals highly to members of that group even better, after all skydivers are smarter, more clever, truly embrace life, and make better lovers, right? If that’s your premise, why do you see military service as the implicit option? Why not (in the US) America Corps, a revitalized Civilian Conservation Corps, Public Health Service, or any number of civilian service options? W/r/t service in the military, I take a somewhat different view: I want military service to be seen as a first choice option for more – neither mandatory nor ‘last choice’ option (whether for money/college money or other reasons). I’ve written w/r/t loss of O-3s (Captains) in the US Army. Retaining E-6s (NCOs) is another problem. I also want ROTC and Jr ROTC in Berkeley, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Austin, Evanston, Boulder, Ann Arbor, Madison, etc. One of the reasons for the origin of the draft in early 20th century US was a concern that the ‘best & brightest’ would join the military and be killed in WWI. The draft was a way to equally distribute loss across the US population. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Okay, why is the right to vote severable from the requirements of other inalienable rights? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Mike - you do understand that a big part of Heinlein's use of that was a metaphor for opposition to tolitarian societies (like Soviet Union), yes? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It's an interesting argument. There are a lot of people here who have repeatedly asserted they don't care much about the rest of the world; I wouldn't deny them the right to vote based on that or any other opinion. What you write aboove sounds like an argument for either (1) some sort of education requirement for voting or (2) travel requirement/study abroad, &/or (3) service in something like the Peace Corps. Regardless of party affiliation/identification, highest voter turn-out correlates with education level. Now that's correlation not causation. One speculate how that intersects with other characteristics you suggest. No. I don't think the right to vote or any of the other rights included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights (from a USA-centric position) need to be earned. Which rights in the Constitution are inalienable and which aren't? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One of the problems with using the kind of metric that one has to follow Roman Catholic Church doctrine in selecting candidates or w/r/t political positions is that in the US it leaves one very few candidates who one can support. If one argues that one must follow Roman Catholic Church doctrine, policy, and teachings in one's voting, there has not been a Presidential candidate in the Republican party in the last 35+ years that one could vote for using your metric. As you wrote, “You can't cherry pick.” To very closely paraphrase your words: The Church has not been shy about their stance on the death penalty. Members know that and if they choose to go against that, then they can't be a member. What's wrong with that? Pope John Paul II called capital punishment “cruel and unnecessary.” See, the “Evangelium Vitae” (The Gospel of Life) issued 25 March 1995. The Catholic Church and its cardinals and bishops have issued numerous statements against the death penalty over the last 35 years, including opposition to death penalty for convicted terrorists. If one favors legality of capital punishment, should they also be ousted from the Catholic Church? What about pro-capital punishment Catholic politicians? To be consonant with the teachings & doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, by your argument/metric one must also be against the death penalty. Again, to go back to your words: “They took a moral stand, that's what churches do. If they didn't have morals, they wouldn't be churches, they would be liberals.” Following your argument, since the church opposes something that make it’s a moral position. Again by your own construction, if one looks at those groups that support death penalty they “don’t have morals.” Therefore by your own construction, do conservatives who support the death penalty not have morals? Or If they didn't have morals, they wouldn't be churches, they would be conservatives? (I don't think so, but it's your construction/argument.) To show how even more problematic the correlation is: if one uses the positions of the Catholic Church as the *sole* indicator of what is moral or not, all divorced people “don’t have morals” and all people who supported the invasion of Iraq “don’t have morals.” Pope John Paul II on opposition to Iraq War during a meeting with President Bush: “You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made since you visited me, first at Castelgandolfo on 23 July 2001, and again in this Apostolic Palace on 28 May 2002.” Per Catholic policy, those who support torture “don’t have morals” based on your construction of who does or doesn't have morals. So it’s not just the stance on abortion that is problematic in terms of reconciling voting and position of the Catholic Church. What it does seem -- & this is very much owned as my opinion -- is that abortion gets used a lot more by folks who don't like it to judge other folks. Whereas other areas in which the Catholic Church is unequivocal in opposition (death penalty, torture, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, etc) get selectively much less attention. Why is that? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Per the subject line, tactics do not equal strategy. I ask questions ... lots of questions. It's about having empirical evidence ("facts") to support the underlying lines of reasoning or challenge (mis-)assumptions. Sometimes it's about trying to figure out how/why/what train of reasoning folks use to get to perceptions that they assert with such confidence. (Occasionally I agree & want to see how they got to similar conclusions and some times I learn something new ... or even change by opinions based on new facts.) Is it better to be confidently wrong or tentatively right (correct)? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting ... why do you think it is only you in whose thought process (epistomology of assertions) I am interested? So what did you mean by that quote? And what gives you that strident confidence? That is probably true as I am currently sitting on the tarmac at Knoxville, having been diverted from ATL on my way home from LGA. A couple colleagues and I already have a bet on when we will get home. Losers buy beer. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying