nerdgirl

Two more issues about which to tousle rhetorically: I’m tempted to cite someone w/r/t conclusions that can be based on their tone and word choice, i.e., “I sense your mind isn't really open to discussion.” Beyond that I agree that "provide" is not the same as "promote." From a linguistic perspective, one could argue that provide implies *less* than promote. [Something of a Devil’s advocate argument] “Provide” suggests money & equipment, i.e., what is delineated and no more. And furthermore, per the precision interpretation view, it must be “common defence” not individual and not specialized. “Promote” potentially suggests much, much more. There’s an advocacy connotation to promote that provide does not have. To promote is to pro-actively help or encourage some situation to exist or flourish. One promotes a campaign or promotes world peace; one provides what are the basic necessities. Promote includes not only paying for the basics but establishing programs to generate and insure the general welfare of the citizens of the US of A. Of course, promote also means “to advance in rank, dignity, position, etc.” One might interpret the Preamble to mean that “general welfare” should be promoted above “common defence” based on a pseudo-linguistic analysis. [/Devil’s advocate] I’m not aware of any historical evidence to support speculative, quasi-linguistic interpretation. Part of the strength is in the ambiquity that also enables flexibility. There are few things that are very specifically called out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. One could also argue that provide also implies more privatization, as was the historical norm at the time of crafting the Constitution. In some areas the Framers were intentionally precise (e.g., 2-year money for the Army, ages for elected officials) and in other areas intentionally ambiguous, such as w/r/t “general welfare.” Why? It would interesting (to me at least) to explore how historically radical the idea of a standing, professional *federal* Army was at the time (as opposed to the English tradition of universal military obligation for all able-bodied free men at the will of the King or Queen). The Framers were concerned with regard to what the States (via their elected/appointed representatives) would approve, so Army was explicitly included. What was the ability/obligation/options available to the federal government w/r/t a professional Army under the Articles of Confederation? Why was the Army limited to 2-year money? A commitment from the States –- who resisted/feared strong centralized govt, a la England and who had their own “well-regulated militias” -- to support a standing *federal* Army (as opposed to the civilian volunteer force of the Revolutionary Army) must have been radical! To whom are you directing that rhetoric? And specifically which parts of the stimulus bills under discussion? (Or again, an illustrative and devil's advocate style argument) The infamous ‘military-industrial’ complex? Here’s $9.3B in government stimulus, I cited earlier this week. And still doesn’t change the fact that “welfare” is mentioned twice in the US Constitution. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In my reading of your response, you bring up two very important and substantive issues: First, government stimulus on research and development – both military and non-military – spur innovation & enable technological competitiveness. If you and I agree that the benefit to the US population and US industry from such government stimulus programs is “a mile long” (benefit to the wider world is a normative bonus), why the opposition? (Short list of examples I’ve provided previously here.) And second, Constitutionality: “Welfare” is mentioned explicitly in the US Constitution twice. The Preamble states explicitly that the Constitution of the United States of America is established in order to “promote the general Welfare” as one of the primary causal reasons to form the govenment. The US Constitution established the government of the US. It is part of the function of federal government. Article 1 Section 8 states “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” It’s hard to argue that “welfare” was not in the Constitution. What welfare meant to the Congressional founders, what welfare constitutes today, what it should or should not in the future are separate issues. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How did you come to that conclusion? One of the two presidential candidates spoke about it regularly and featured it prominently in his platform. He cited it over and over and over and over and over again. Another primary candidate, Sen Edwards made it a major issue. As a result he was criticized and ridiculed for it here in Speakers Corner. Sen Clinton spoke about it as well. There’s little evidence to support the assertion that some candidates were not speaking about the rising cost of education and the associated problems for ‘regular’ Americans as individuals and America as a whole. Whether or not people heard or paid attention is another issue. One could ask similar questions about the Presidential candidates’ platforms on US innovation & technological competiveness or the Presidential candidate’s platforms on US infrastructure. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I got here (Speaker’s Corner on the internet’s WWW) literally because of government stimulus programs - ARPA’s Intergalactic Computer Network that was expanded by the NSF. And I’m using a graphical browser directly evolved from the Mosiac browser, rather than Unix-based interface (e.g., pine, elm), that was developed by government funding in a government-funded facility/institution. We all got _here_ as a result of government stimulus programs. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Well, if those are of interest, ya may like lego insurgents even more. [tongue firmly planted in cheek] For the counterinsurgency nerd in your life ... [tongue removed from cheek] /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Very roughly, my heuristic is: Geek: engineer-type (including computer engineers) for whom building things that actually work (for some while before exploding/imploding/crashing/igniting) is important Nerd: science-type for whom advancing the limits of knowledge is important Squint is a verb. I’m only 39% (sig figs folks) rated ‘geek’ but I think I should get extra points for having a first-author Nature paper … (& you should too if you know why that’s significant ). I also get extra points for ‘heuristic.’ /Marg [Edit to add: why do you ask?] Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Last week I was up in the Boston area – Hanscom AFB specifically, not the ‘People’s Republic of Cambridge.’ All the outrage was directed at Bernie Madoff. Something along the sentiment of "I hope he fries in hell" is generally reflective of the outrage. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

In between all the partisan discussions of domestic politics, did anyone else hear about the decision to not allow the US access to Manas AB in Kyrgystan? It’s been a critical logistical base in supplying US operations in Afghanistan. “In Moscow to seek financial support, the president of Kyrgyzstan, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, on Tuesday announced that a decision to close a U.S. air base in his country — a decision that will seriously hamper U.S. efforts in Afghanistan. “Mr. Bakiyev arrived in Moscow under pressure to ease economic troubles in Kyrgyzstan, which is heavily in debt to Russia and dependent on remittances from migrant workers. President Dmitri A. Medvedev said Russia would extend a $2 billion loan and $150 million in aid to Kyrgyzstan, which Mr. Bakiyev hailed as ‘serious and important support.’ “Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, on Tuesday called Manas ‘a hugely important’ airbase for the United States. The base has served as an air hub and refueling and transit point for NATO efforts in Afghanistan, and U.S. officials have several times intervened when Kyrgyz officials considered shutting it. “The base was opened in 2001 with Moscow’s blessing, but Russian leaders were increasingly irritated by the continuing presence of American troops there. It was not clear whether Russian officials had pressed Bishkek to end the agreement. “To Russians, the longstanding U.S. presence at Manas suggested ambitions ‘to strengthen its position in this region’ – against Moscow’s and Beijing’s interests, said Andronik Migranyan, an analyst at the Institute of Democracy and Cooperation, a Russian think-tank based in New York.” Great powers relations return? Backlash for Georgian War stance? Strategically it’s really only a short-term gain potentially for Russia in the grand chessboard. An unstable Afghanistan is just as, if not more dangerous to Russia as it is to the US. Putin is many things; stupid is not one of them. He must recognize that in the long run a destabilized Afghanistan is not beneficial to Russia. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting speculative hypothesis. I suspect it's much less sensationalistic. Altho’ it’s not stated in the Chicago Tribune article, I strongly suspect the EO is White House Executive Order: Ensuring Lawful Interrogations. Section G states: “The terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.” That is usually taken to refer to detention on the field of battle or in the course of military or covert operations. Now I wouldn't put it beyond a current-day Gust Avrakotos to interpret that as liberally as he (or she) might. Above that, the EO states: “Section 1. Revocation. Executive Order 13440 of July 20, 2007, is revoked. All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order.[emphasis – nerdgirl] “Heads of departments and agencies shall take all necessary steps to ensure that all directives, orders, and regulations of their respective departments or agencies are consistent with this order. Upon request, the Attorney General shall provide guidance about which directives, orders, and regulations are inconsistent with this order.” Another Executive Order does exist related to rendition that would not be automatically overturned by the above EO: PDD-39, which dates back to 1995. Section 2 of PDD-39 addresses legal return (i.e., legal rendition not extraordinary rendition) of terrorist suspects to the U.S. “for prosecution.” For those nations w/which the US does not extradition agreements (“extraterritorial statutes”), PDD-39 directs State and DOJ to “work to resolve the problem, where possible and appropriate, through negotiation and conclusion of new extradition treaties.” PDD-39 continues: “If we do not receive adequate cooperation from a state that harbors a terrorist whose extradition we are seeking, we shall take appropriate measures to induce cooperation. Return of suspects by force may be effected without the cooperation of the host government, consistent with the procedures outlined in NSD-77, which shall remain in effect. (S).” As far as I am aware, even the title of NSD-77, which was produced during President George HW Bush’s administration, remains classified. If you have a FOIA’d link to a redacted version, I’d love to see it! (President Reagan also had a NSD-77 on unrelated subject.) What President Obama added, subtracted, or left unchanged in the PDD I don’t know … do you? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The problem with the “Blame CRA” hypothesis is that it’s not true. That is the facts do not support it … no matter how much people want to believe it. “Risky mortgage products, not risky borrowers, are the root cause of the mortgage default crisis.” Default rates among recipients of CRA mortgages are lower than non-CRA mortgages. “… CRA has always had critics, and they now suggest that the law went too far in encouraging banks to lend in struggling communities. Rhetoric aside, the argument turns on a simple question: In the current mortgage meltdown, did lenders approve bad loans to comply with CRA, or to make money? “The evidence strongly suggests the latter. First, consider timing. CRA was enacted in 1977. The sub-prime lending at the heart of the current crisis exploded a full quarter century later. In the mid-1990s, new CRA regulations and a wave of mergers led to a flurry of CRA activity, but, as noted by the New America Foundation's Ellen Seidman (and by Harvard's Joint Center), that activity ‘largely came to an end by 2001.’ In late 2004, the Bush administration announced plans to sharply weaken CRA regulations, pulling small and mid-sized banks out from under the law's toughest standards. Yet sub-prime lending continued, and even intensified -- at the very time when activity under CRA had slowed and the law had weakened. “Second, it is hard to blame CRA for the mortgage meltdown when CRA doesn't even apply to most of the loans that are behind it. “Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the ‘tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA,’ Yellen says, ‘has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.’ “Yellen is hardly alone in concluding that the real problems came from the institutions beyond the reach of CRA. One of the only regulators who long ago saw the current crisis coming was the late Ned Gramlich, a former Fed governor. While Alan Greenspan was cheering the sub-prime boom, Gramlich warned of its risks and unsuccessfully pushed for greater supervision of bank affiliates. But Gramlich praised CRA, saying last year, ‘banks have made many low- and moderate-income mortgages to fulfill their CRA obligations, they have found default rates pleasantly low, and they generally charge low mortgages rates. Thirty years later, CRA has become very good business.’ “It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA. That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance. And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator. Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did. “And that is not political correctness. It is correctness.” Combine that with the reality of “Where are the highest foreclosure rates and what kind of loans are they? which recognizes the correlation between defaulting on home mortgages and inflated housing values. Foreclosures rates in urban and rural areas of Mississippi (lowest per capita State income), *where the housing prices are reasonable,* has been on par with historical averages. Where housing prices have skyrocketed, e.g., California, which leads w/8 of the highest foreclosure communities, the foreclosures rates are the highest. If a lower-income" mortgage is $150,000, it takes 3 of those loans defaulting to equal one $450,000 mortgage default or 6 of those loans defaulting to equal one $900,000 McMansion default (altho’ parts of California, $900k is a 1500ft^2 single-family home). Historically, some very small percentage of home loans have defaulted and led to foreclosures (~1.5%, iirc), when the average default was some relatively smaller value, the impact could be adsorbed by the larger economic system; as mortgage defaults grew larger both in absolute number and average value, it’s a larger pressure on the system. But we’ve already been through this once before. The problem isn’t greed: greed is a relative ‘constant’ throughout history. The absence of oversight, the lack of tacit ability to implement, and apparent lack of consequences for those who engaged in behavior are the problem. Individual homeowners – whether a 2nd McMansion or rural poor – are experiencing consequences through loss of homes. How good greed (entrepreneurial capitalism is encouraged/fostered) versus how bad greed is minimized is the problem. /Marg ... still invoking all those annoying facts Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Your post inspires a thought-experiment : Take the Missile Defense Agency portion of the 2009 PBR and list just the Program names with recipient of funds, e.g., Lockheed-Martin, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon, TRW + a whole lot of mid- & small-sized companies from every State of the Union. Every State is not a coincidence. There’s $9.3B in RDT&E alone (i.e., that doesn't included procurement, which is more $) – would folks consider that jobs or bullshit ? By comparison, -- all DARPA: $3.3B -- all of the Joint Chemical and Biological Defense Program (CBDP): $1.1B -- DTRA WMD Defeat Technologies (i.e., all WMD-defeat related RDT&E that's not CBDP, DARPA, or MDA): $456M /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

One of my favorite Republicans – & there are quite few favorites

I want to know more about this one before categorizing. Is that to pay for the folks at State public health depts around the country to pursue preventative public health measures? (Jobs) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What I am saying is what I wrote above. What I would assert: rather than having admitted to any behavior and being forgiven, it would have been better (if the allegations were true) that he had not made those choices. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

President Clinton, for behavior while President, while Governor of the State of Arkansas, and before that, was tried in civil court and in the court of public opinion regarding a pattern of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct (including but not limited to serial adultery). Imo, there's a big difference between small imperfections and youthful exhuberance and what is alleged regarding former President Clinton's behavior. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

No. If you assert enacting civil rights legislation (putting aside historical issues and idiosyncracies for a moment) as indication of progressive social change, that *is* an example of Republicans not behaving in a conservative fashion (i.e., supporting something other than the status quo or slow prudent change). This is an example of where party labels (Dem, GOP, Whigs) don't fit today's partisan bickering. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

The following facts should answer your question quite nicely since the vast majority of republicans have historically been conservative, while the majority of deomcrats have historically been liberal (a term you avoid by calling liberals "progressive"). Lincoln and the Republican Party abolished slavery in 1862. Republicans passed the 14th amendment to the Constitution in 1868 known as the equal protection clause and the 15th amendment in 1870 which granted equal rights to vote. By invoking the foundation of the Republican party you actually further his point w/r/t conservative philosophy and social change, perhaps ironically. And you also further your point on the value of doing "a little research." Liberals of the 1800s opposed slavery and were part of the early Republican Party. At the time the Democrats were the conservative party. The Southern rural Democrats of the 1800s supported slavery - they were the (staunch) conservatives (maintaining tradition) of the time. The Northern Democrats tended to support States rights, which was something of a 'cop-out,' as northern States had outlawed slavery by the early 1800s. (I would argue that economics were just as much a motivator as normatives {i.e., “ethics/morals”}. Northern industry was not dependent on slave labor, and workers in the north didn't want competition from the South/competition from freed slaves). When it was founded the Republican Party most strongly resembled a liberalist political philosophy & a fairly radical one at that! Liberalism as tending to be concerned with equality and civil, political, and personal liberties and more willing to challenge traditional assumptions or ways of doing things. (In contrast to being supportive of long-standing institutions and favoring slow, prudent change, if any change at all.) When the Republican Party was founded back in the 1850s, it wasn’t just anti-slavery. The slogan of the first Republican Presidential nominee was “Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men.” Early Republican activists were pro-universal education, pro-technology, supported growth of cities and institutions (federal, i.e., the progenitor of the Federal Reserve & the first income tax; state; and private for progressive growth), supported universal suffrage (i.e., women), also opposed polygamy and alcohol, supported what were early experiments in early rights of workers, e.g., see Lincoln’s Speech on Free Labor vs. Slave Labor (full test available through the "Lincoln Log”) sounds almost ... (& I don my asbestos underwear here) Marxist. Obviously Lincoln was not a Marxist ... and not just because of the whole time dilation issue. He was, however, a radical Republican! (He also was the only US President thus far to have been granted a patent.) Originally the Democratic Party was the party of the anti-federalists (anti-“Big government”), pro-States rights, rural, and strict interpretationalists of the Constitution (constructivists) in opposition to the pro-federalists, pro-interpretationalist, urban, progressives (Federalists). Things change, eh? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for all the links. To bring one up to current day, at least from the US perspective, one can look to the latest “Progress Toward Security and Stability in Afghanistan” report that was delivered to Congress Monday by the DoD. What does it say: security has further decreased & insurgency has increased: “The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated in several areas of the country since the last report [June 2008 – nerdgirl]. The spring and summer of 2008 saw the highest levels of violence since the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) began their involvement in Afghanistan. Violence is concentrated in the south of the country (the historic heartland of the Taliban) and the east of the country, the area most vulnerable to cross-border activity from neighboring Pakistan. "The Taliban regrouped after its fall from power and has coalesced into a resilient and evolving insurgency. The insurgents are challenging the control of the GIRoA in areas of the south and the east, and increasingly in the west. Between January and December 10 2008, 132 U.S. personnel died as the result of hostile action, up from 82 in 2007. In 2007, 199 international personnel were killed. Between January and October of 2008 insurgent action resulted in the deaths of 265 coalition forces. Insurgent violence increased in the spring and summer of 2008 by 40 percent, most visibly in the form of asymmetric attacks as Afghan and international forces’ pressure forced the insurgents to shift the majority of their effort to targeting police and civilians, resulting in an increasing sense of personal insecurity among the populace. According to ISAF, insurgent-initiated attacks increased 33 percent for the whole of 2008. The 2008 ISAF and Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) military campaign has caused setbacks to the Afghan insurgency, including leadership losses and the loss of some key safe havens in Afghanistan. Despite these setbacks, the insurgency has maintained and in some areas increased the scope and pace of its terrorist attacks and bombings. The increase in insurgent-initiated violence in Afghanistan relates directly to the perceived ineffectiveness of the government, the availability of safe havens in western Pakistan, and increased ISAF presence in former insurgent-controlled areas.” On poppy cultivation * trade: “Narcotics remain a significant challenge for Afghanistan and the international community. The flourishing narcotics trade erodes the legitimacy of the GIRoA and provides financial means to the insurgency. Widespread poppy cultivation in the country calls into question the GIRoA’s resolve in tackling this criminal behavior. Afghanistan supplied 93 percent of the world’s opium in 2007, but uneven progress in reducing the amount of opium produced has been made in 2008. According to the United Nations Office of Drug Control (UNODC), the total area under poppy cultivation fell by 19 percent compared to 2007, though some of this decrease may be attributable to drought conditions in much of the country. Eighteen out of 34 provinces are poppy-free, with 98 percent of the cultivation occurring in seven provinces in the south and west of the country. The province of Helmand alone accounts for 66 percent of cultivation.” Poppy cultivation underlies insurgency financing. How does one eradicate poppy cultivation? Herbicide spraying is one option. Effectiveness has varied highly, e.g., see Plan Colombia. *But* there have been successes in reducing poppy cultivation. From worst to zero poppy cultivation. How? “In 2007 Nangarhar [on the Afghan-Pakistan border – nerdgirl] was one of the worst provinces in regards to poppy production. In August 2008 the province was declared poppy free. This radical turn around is credited to an array of factors, but the aggressive development and reconstruction of the province can not be overlooked in addition to the strong governance of Governor Agha Gul Sherzai. Nangarhar's incredible performance in eradicating poppy resulted in fiscal incentives from Afghan and D[ept] o[f] S[tate] programs. “‘In my 14 years as civil affairs, both here and in Iraq, this has been the most ambitious reconstruction mission thus far,’ Army Maj. Robert Minton, civil affairs, said. ‘The level of development here is creating an epicenter for trade and commerce that will take this region beyond merely a level of sustainment.’” How? Establishment of security, establishment and support of governance and civil institutions (such that Taliban doesn’t fill the void), paving roads (which has been one of the best tactics for decreasing IED effectiveness in Afghanistan), and one more piece that doesn’t get mentioned in many of those stories: figuring out what’s driving the locals to poppy cultivation. If one looks at Afghan poppy cultivation through a South American cultural-economic lens or through a macroscopic lens, one misses critical causal features. In Nangarhar a critical factor was recognizing that cultural dependency to poppy production, understanding the complicated interdependencies, and substituting something else, i.e., what is noted as “commerce” in the af.mil article above. It’s not just money but what that money was used for – bride prices. Or what are called “The Opium Brides of Afghanistan.” While the concept of selling 9- & 10-year old girls to 50-yo men as repayment for debts or as a cultural artifact is repulsive to me and most civilized humans, poppy cultivation serves to fill that economic niche and has another consequence of providing money to support the Taliban insurgency and al Qa’eda terrorists. Deal with the basic economic and cultural issue first ($ for bride price). That’s largely what was done in Nangarhar. Alternatively, a strategy solely based on traditional/conventional military-based kinetic means (bombs & bullets) ain’t going to work any better for US than it did for the Soviets. [Edit to add: albeit, the only place that I hear that being suggested is a few voices here.] /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Rather than the Holocaust ... or perhaps as more recent example, I would suggest the rise of Taliban as an example of negative social change. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's a very good point. I like the analogy. I'll probably borrow it. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Traditional warfare ... over Taiwan. Cyber-war: some argue China is already attacking the US. "China Goes on the Cyber-Offensive "Evidence is mounting that China is behind a deluge of computer-hacking attacks that have plagued Western governments and defense industries over the past few years. Both German Prime Minister Angela Merkel and the chief of British counterintelligence, or mi5, have complained about cyber-penetrations originating in China. Likewise a senior U.S. Air Force officer, Major General William Lord, of the Air Force Office of Warfighting Integration, said that China has downloaded 10 to 20 terabytes of information from U.S. defense and government computer networks." In 25 years, 'keyboard warrior' may not be a pejorative. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Well, that's a nearly a given by definition, no? It’s kind of tautological, eh? Conservative social policy values slow or no change. Values tradition. If one is comfortable with the status quo that’s okay. If one isn’t, it’s a problem. So which do you think drives social change more: uncertain times or steady times in which progressive/challenging ideas can foment? And why? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Maybe, but that's probably an exception to the rule. Mayor Giuliani also adopted a “broken windows” strategy – aggressive policing of lower-level crimes and fixing broken windows, dilapidated infrastructure, etc - that was very progressive (rather than conservative) along with aggressive arrest of felony crime offenders and enforcement of laws, i.e., “get tough on crime” approach, which is traditionally associated with conservative policies. There were also increases in the minimum wage (10%) that correlated to reduction in robberies (3.4-3.7%) and murders (6.3-6.9%). Minimum wage increase is a progressive policy. *All* three aspects (plus other policies, in all liklihood) were important. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I dislike ‘talk’ – small or otherwise – that is intentionally cruel or willfully mean. I dislike ‘talk’ that is ignorantly arrogant or pridefully wallows in ignorance. I dislike misogyny, including spoken/written under the guise of joking banter. No, I don’t hate small talk. It’s not a binary choice for me. My response/engagement/tolerance is highly situational. Some small talk can be tedious & superficial … otoh, it can also be silly, playful, and fun. It can establish ‘inside’ jokes that are between two people or a small group that increase group/team cohesiveness and function. I like flirting and intellectual sparring -- both of which some might consider small talk. Small talk can be beneficial – I struck up a conversation with a couple in 2001 when I was in Chamonix, France. It started with small talk. Two years later, my trekking partner & I stayed with the wife while we were in Bangkok. She even enlisted one of her nephews to be our tour guide. He didn’t seem to mind (too much) escorting around two young American women. Yes, I prefer substantive conversation. I prefer intellectually provocative, inquisitive conversation, even moreso, e.g., the kind of stuff that gets dismissed as “too serious” or “pointy-headed drivel.” I.e., the kind of stuff I respond to & write about over in Speakers Corner. At the same time, I can both appreciate the value of small talk and respect those who would prefer to not participate in either small talk or in (over)-serious conversation. Just my experience … your personal mileage may vary.

Concur. I'm not sure that the asserted correlations in the cited article hold up ... or maybe I'm just an exception? I'm a strong extrovert -- I *do* get energy from being around people and from connecting people and from leading and give me a 5-person or 5000-person audience that I get to speak to & I 'love' it! At the same time, I prefer substantive discussion. I also have no problem being alone -- whether on a Saturday night or backpacking a Colorado 14-er. And since I had to return my 'Crackberry' in July 2007 (it didn't belong to me but belonged to my employer), I don't have a electronic tether cell phone. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying