Slashdot Mirror

I see "We want you to be part of the process, but you no longer control it."

Really??? That's some crazy rose-tinted lenses you have there. It also doesn't jive with the way the healthcare bill went down (written behind closed doors, republican suggestions summarily shot down, etc, etc): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101701810.html

I'm sorry but "I'm going to write 1000 pages without you and then offer you a chance to pitch an amendment to my grand plans" is not "working together or across the aisle". It's exactly what Obama stated, coming along for the ride with a pittance of consideration.

you have to look at the whole guy and what he's done

I am looking at the whole guy. I'm not seeing a guy that loves to reach across the aisle. Heck, his entire rhetoric is "Change", namely "you did it wrong, so we're gonna do it my way now." And everything he's done or said in office has confirmed this mindset. The stimulus bill went down the exact same way: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/president_obamas_i_won_to_repu.html

"The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/index.htm:

"drawn up, amended and negotiated in record time. "

"The bill's final passage would represent far less than the bipartisan victory Obama had hoped for weeks ago, a hope he tabled as it became clear that Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats were adamantly opposed to the size and contents of the bill. Republican critics believe there are more targeted and effective ways to create jobs than the measures in the bill, including more spending on infrastructure and more tax relief."

In the House, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., blasted the bill as misguided. "Republicans are not about saying 'No' but about saying 'Yes' to solutions that put Americans back to work," Pence said. "[This legislation] will not grow our economy. It will grow our government."

he compromise bill was crafted after intensive negotiations in recent days between the House, Senate and White House, although Republicans said repeatedly they felt excluded from the process. And on Friday, several said they did not think it was fair that they were being asked to vote on a 1,000-page-plus bill that was posted online only late Thursday night.

And you know the really sad thing? The Republican's concerns were dead on . The stimulus spending wasn't targetted at all -- it was just a bunch of tax rebates to the public. So it didn't actually stimulate the economy, because those people just used the money to pay down debt.

"Bipartisanship" is more than just listening to and then disregarding your opponent. It requires actual acceptance of some of their beliefs, even if it goes against your ideology (you think the Democrats under Clinton wanted to turn Welfare into workfare???). Obama is not willing to accept this. The Bush tax cuts are another example -- Obama is essentially holding them (and the economy) hostage on an ideological stance that the 250k+ income level see a tax hike.

I'm sorry, but being "part of the process" as a minority party is supposed to be 70/30 input, not 97/3. Though to be fair I'll grant that the Republicans are just as ideologically stubborn on refusing any and all tax hikes. Though I believe that stance is more reasonable since our economy is on eggshells and you aren't supposed to raise taxes during those periods. Point is, at best Obama is exactly the same in stubborness. He's not bipartisan.

I see "We want you to be part of the process, but you no longer control it."

Really??? That's some crazy rose-tinted lenses you have there. It also doesn't jive with the way the healthcare bill went down (written behind closed doors, republican suggestions summarily shot down, etc, etc): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101701810.html

I'm sorry but "I'm going to write 1000 pages without you and then offer you a chance to pitch an amendment to my grand plans" is not "working together or across the aisle". It's exactly what Obama stated, coming along for the ride with a pittance of consideration.

you have to look at the whole guy and what he's done

I am looking at the whole guy. I'm not seeing a guy that loves to reach across the aisle. Heck, his entire rhetoric is "Change", namely "you did it wrong, so we're gonna do it my way now." And everything he's done or said in office has confirmed this mindset. The stimulus bill went down the exact same way: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/11/president_obamas_i_won_to_repu.html

"The president added, "I won. So I think on that one, I trump you."

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/13/news/economy/house_final_stimulus/index.htm:

"drawn up, amended and negotiated in record time. "

"The bill's final passage would represent far less than the bipartisan victory Obama had hoped for weeks ago, a hope he tabled as it became clear that Republicans and some fiscally conservative Democrats were adamantly opposed to the size and contents of the bill. Republican critics believe there are more targeted and effective ways to create jobs than the measures in the bill, including more spending on infrastructure and more tax relief."

In the House, Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., blasted the bill as misguided. "Republicans are not about saying 'No' but about saying 'Yes' to solutions that put Americans back to work," Pence said. "[This legislation] will not grow our economy. It will grow our government."

he compromise bill was crafted after intensive negotiations in recent days between the House, Senate and White House, although Republicans said repeatedly they felt excluded from the process. And on Friday, several said they did not think it was fair that they were being asked to vote on a 1,000-page-plus bill that was posted online only late Thursday night.

And you know the really sad thing? The Republican's concerns were dead on . The stimulus spending wasn't targetted at all -- it was just a bunch of tax rebates to the public. So it didn't actually stimulate the economy, because those people just used the money to pay down debt.

"Bipartisanship" is more than just listening to and then disregarding your opponent. It requires actual acceptance of some of their beliefs, even if it goes against your ideology (you think the Democrats under Clinton wanted to turn Welfare into workfare???). Obama is not willing to accept this. The Bush tax cuts are another example -- Obama is essentially holding them (and the economy) hostage on an ideological stance that the 250k+ income level see a tax hike.

I'm sorry, but being "part of the process" as a minority party is supposed to be 70/30 input, not 97/3. Though to be fair I'll grant that the Republicans are just as ideologically stubborn on refusing any and all tax hikes. Though I believe that stance is more reasonable since our economy is on eggshells and you aren't supposed to raise taxes during those periods. Point is, at best Obama is exactly the same in stubborness. He's not bipartisan.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/

You don't need to read it all, the first reason says it all. The entire point of congressional sessions is ot discuss and the whole point of discussion is to change minds. There is none of that from this congress and thus, they don't do their jobs but they get paid anyway.

Longest hours? Google: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/survey-teachers-work-53-hours-per-week-on-average/2012/03/16/gIQAqGxYGS_blog.html

53?!? And 6-8 weeks of PTO? WOW. Talk to any IT Developer, 50-100 hours per week. Average, easily 60. I was in Accounting & Auditing and averaged 55 hours (60+ for month, quarter, & annual closes). In IT, averaged 55; 100+ for deadlines. As an IT PM, 50-70 hours. 15-20 days PTO + 10 holidays.

And no, that does not count the hours spent on further education, certifications, and air travel for clients. And in the consulting world, not seeing home Monday to Thursday. Yes, our salaries are higher, 50k starting and growing to 80k+ over 5+ years, but considering the hours, I think comparable to teachers.

Just because you personally and possibly your industry are overworked doesn't mean you should belittle how hard teachers work. Why are you putting in so many hours anyway? In a school the (good) teachers put in extra time out of the love of teaching and their desire to see their students succeed and the teachers are overworked because there's not enough money to hire extra teachers.

Is IT really an important enough job to be putting in 100 hours per week? That's 14 hours/day 7 days/week during crunch time!! Are you at least getting OT or ST for those extra hours? You might be doing it out of love for your job but your manager and company are doing it because they love you putting in ~1.5 people's worth of work for 1 person's pay.

Why was this marked +4 Interesting? The poster basically posted a random all-encompassing opinion with out any sources.

In North America? Have you traveled to parts outside of the Continental US to make that claim? I don't think Mexico & Canada would like to be put into the same bucket.

Least Respected? You said NA so I am guessing compared to the world. There are many countries out there where the senior students run the school and/or the teachers only show up to work on pay day.

Poorest Paid Professional? Google: http://www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state/
Average HOUSEHOLD income? Google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
Nuff Said (if you compare to most other countries, foreign teachers make less or about the same relative to other jobs there).

Longest hours? Google: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/survey-teachers-work-53-hours-per-week-on-average/2012/03/16/gIQAqGxYGS_blog.html

53?!? And 6-8 weeks of PTO? WOW. Talk to any IT Developer, 50-100 hours per week. Average, easily 60. I was in Accounting & Auditing and averaged 55 hours (60+ for month, quarter, & annual closes). In IT, averaged 55; 100+ for deadlines. As an IT PM, 50-70 hours. 15-20 days PTO + 10 holidays.

And no, that does not count the hours spent on further education, certifications, and air travel for clients. And in the consulting world, not seeing home Monday to Thursday. Yes, our salaries are higher, 50k starting and growing to 80k+ over 5+ years, but considering the hours, I think comparable to teachers.

BUT COME ON, "consistently one of the least respected, poorest paid professionals... longest hours of anyone"? BULL! Go see a few episodes of Dirty Jobs.

Seniority has nothing to do with teachers becoming "heroes". My teacher heroes can be counted on both hands and they were some of the least paid in the schools (except 2). I respect them to the Nth degree. But the worst teachers, although just 4, made some of the highest salaries (90k+). Every time this topic comes up, I remember those 4 and think how much of a handicap each generation that they touch start off with. All the other teachers were mediocre but I still thank them for their contribution to what I am today.

there's an argument for nipping the problem in the bud before the mistake happens. an unstable idiot with a gun is a problem. no matter how faulty the gun or how many cops are standing around him

There is an argument, but the argument needs to be tempered with "how many lives is this going to cost us nipping it in the bud?" Because you *know* that an actual invasion over the DMZ or by sea means that everything stationed by NK behind the DMZ gets launched.

Diplomacy has worked over the past decades, because it has prevented war that would have levelled Seoul, because we know that they know that crossing the DMZ means cruise missile strikes on all thier SAM bases and then tons of bombs from BUFs. As crazy as you think the North Koreans are, there is a method to their madness.

And MAD still exists. Except that it's not mutual, it's simply assured destruction by us of anyone who uses a nuke against us, even if all they have is one.

just that you are wrong that this kind of thing just goes away on its own

No. It doesn't go away on its own. That's what diplomacy is for. If you resort to invasion it means that you have failed.

Your mistake is that you think diplomacy is "doing nothing." It's not.

What frightens me is the assholes from PNAC and FPI who are advising Romney are pushing for an interventionist "strike first, ask questions later" military policy. An Imperial America, if you will. It's not like these guys are hiding it.

Read from their own mouths:

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/ - the current Neocon philosophy on foreign policy and the military.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm - The predecessor for the above.

http://www.mittromney.com/collection/foreign-policy - Mitt Romney's official stance on the "American Century" (he did not pick this title by accident).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mitt-romney-taps-foreign-policy-national-security-advisers/2011/10/06/gIQAnDHzPL_story.html - the article describing who is on Mitt's staff.

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/about/staff - Listing of staff at FPI.

Please notice the similarity of individuals at both think-tanks and who is staffing Mitt's foreign policy jobs, and the similarities in philosophy all of the above is.

Taken as a totality, it is frightening, because it basically guarantees that we will be at least in a shooting war with Iran if Romney gets elected. They will *insist* he does so.

--
BMO

Huh? Where is this happening? Maybe private sector teachers, but deficiently not public sector ones.

Here is a link that has real numbers for layoffs. It says there have been 150,000 public teacher layoffs due to the recession. It also mentions Bureau of Labor Statistics which says 33,500 teachers were hit by layoffs since September. (Article was written in June.)

So, you may not have noticed it happening - but it is. Also, and this is a guess, it is affecting lower income schools since higher income schools generally have parents that are able to complain, hire lawyers, call their city/state/federal representatives, etc. So, if your kids go to a "good school" they might have kept their teacher numbers by shifting the burdens to schools that aren't performing.

Also, talking to teachers that I know, finding a teaching job is next to impossible right now. So, it might be less about layoffs than not filling positions as people retire/leave the field/whatever.

You link doesn't indicate any default rate for subprime above historic levels.

Ok, I'll provide another one then: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/14/AR2007061400513.html

"The problems arose last year as the housing market softened, driving down home prices and making it more difficult for cash-strapped borrowers to sell their homes or refinance their way out of trouble. The most dramatic fallout took place in the subprime market, which caters to people with blemished credit or other factors that make them a risk to lenders. Those borrowers entered foreclosure at a rate of 2.43 percent, up from 2 percent the previous quarter. The percentages seem small, but they are far above norms, particularly in a healthy economy. "

Then "subprime" loans began to default at a rate still well below historical averages, causing the crisis. At the time of the first crisis (the collapse of the derivatives), subprime loans were defaulting at rates *below* historical norms.

Umm, data or cite? By mid-2007, subprime default was already well above norms. The earliest time you could possibly say CDOs were getting wonky was mid 2007, though it's probably closer to mid 2008 (just look at the graph spikes): http://mbaadmin.americaeconomia.com/system/files/value.pdfP Even this article chalks "first feeling the tremors" to early 2007: http://bonds.about.com/od/derivativesandexotics/a/CDO.htm

Face it, the defaults proceeded the CDO collapse. They _had_ to. The value of a derivative can't collapse unless the underlying asset it's tied to collapses.

But I'll give you a chance to go edit Wikipedia and link to it again, but if it's like last time, Wikipedia won't say what you say it says.

A far step above your method of proof, namely stating "I'm right, believe me", and then going back to your own world.

But that's unrelated to my assertion, that the meltdown wasn't caused by subprime loans defaulting above historic levels. The *sole* cause of the crisis was rich white make bankers lying about risk. All it took was one loan defaulting to cause the whole system to collapse.

Except that the meltdown was already in progress about a year a half before they even started mentioning derivatives. And it was a hell of alot more than "one loan". There were record numbers of foreclosures: http://www.kansascityfed.org/Publicat/ECONREV/PDF/4q07Edmiston.pdf

"Residential foreclosures in the United States have been rising very rapidly since 2006. In the second quarter of 2007, the share of outstanding mortgages in some stage of foreclosure stood at 1.4 percent, near historic highs and up from less than 1 percent a year earlier. The number of mortgages entering the foreclosure process reached an all-time high in mid-2007"

"In the second quarter of 2007, 0.65 percent of all mortgages entered foreclosure. To put this Chart into perspective, before 2006 the new foreclosure rate reached 0.5 percent of all mortgages only once. Since the third quarter of 2006, the new foreclosure rate has persistently been near or above that rateâ"an unprecedented event over the last 38 years."

Do you research this stuff at all? Hell, just look at Chart 4 -- the subprime ARM foreclosure spike began in mid-2005.

Crashing prices caused speculators and rich people to default. Then the market went into a free fall. If the rich and speculators hadn't defaulted, the full crash wouldn't have happened. If the bankers hadn't committed trillions of dollars of fraud, the crash wouldn

Agreed. Just about every serious economist out there will tell you that US gas taxes are much lower than would be socially optimal. For instance, Greg Mankiw, former chairman of the CEA and an adviser to Romney, listed a few key reasons for phasing in an extra $1/gal tax in an article for the WSJ. Steven Chu, Obama's energy secretary, had a broadly similar proposal.

The costs of road use and pollution need to be linked to the price of using the roads and the price of polluting. If we want people to use less gas, we should tax it more. Demand for gas is relatively inelastic, so gas tax revenues would greatly increase, and we could use that to either help with the deficit or reduce taxes on things we want people to do more of (like income/payroll taxes, which tax productivity).

The only trouble is that even though this is a no-brainer, it's a third rail which no mainstream politicians will touch.

(Here's a Washington Post article with more details.)

I saw this earlier and this thought immediately came to mind: Why send probes on dangerous cave missions when a machine that bores holes and analyses the sample could be built instead?

Exactly.

Further, lava tubes, oddly enough, are lined with lava. Not that informative.

A German designed drill is scheduled for the next lander in 2016 and drill 16 feet into the surface. Nothing you can put in a cave will be able come close to that, and at best it might be able to drill a few inches into solid lava.

The hole named "Jeanne" here is more than 178 meters deep, no way a drill can come close to that. And many of the holes detected on Mars are not lava tubes but sink holes, i.e. created by some process of erosion. This is often involves water, and "follow the water" is exactly what Mars exploration wants to do. We are much more likely to find interesting water-related geology and chemistry hundreds of meters down a water-erosion tunnel than a few meters down under the surface.

Sorry to mention it, but isn't the fact that the average American glutting on fast-food, doesn't exercise and is a workaholic moving the life expectancy down? I remember hearing that the current generation will be the first one for a while to live longer than its children. And I know ... citation needed.. and here it is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/aug/13/usa.ewenmacaskill
and here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/life-expectancy-map/?hpid=z3

I saw this earlier and this thought immediately came to mind: Why send probes on dangerous cave missions when a machine that bores holes and analyses the sample could be built instead?

Exactly.

Further, lava tubes, oddly enough, are lined with lava.
Not that informative.

A German designed drill is scheduled for the next lander in 2016 and drill 16 feet into the surface.
Nothing you can put in a cave will be able come close to that, and at best it might be able to drill a few inches into solid lava.

As far as the stimulus working Ezra Klein has lots of links. Pick things like: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

Well, I do appreciate a cited source, but macroeconomic models are far from "scientific proof". Hell, some of them (like the CBO study) are flat out "made-up multipliers". In reality, it's almost impossible to determine whether or not a recovery was caused because of stimulus spending or in lieu of it. In addition, unknown externalities (such as the impending "fiscal cliff" debt hole, made worse by stimulus spending) which exert negative impact on the economy are not accounted for.

What does "overvalued" even me?

Seems pretty straightforward. It means something is priced above its market worth (what people are willing to pay for it)..

Assuming interest rates were permanently at 1% and that inflation were equal to maintenance costs. Assume that a house has a rent equivalent of $1000 / mo (i.e. a $100-200k house under normal market conditions). Under the conditions of a 1% that house could easily cost over $1m and be "worth" over a million.

I have no idea where you're getting your numbers from. A 200k house in a 30 year amortization at 1% is a monthly payment of ~$650. Tack on mortgage insurance (~$50), PMI ($50), and property taxes ($150) and your monthly payment is around $900. There's no way in hell you could support a million dollar valuation. Hell, even a 250k house would put you over the $1000/month price point. And this once again assumes a _ludicrously_ low rate -- what bank is going to lend at 1%? Hell, the fed rate is practically 0 right now and the lowest you can get is around 3.5% on a 30 year, assuming a 20% downpayment.

Absolutely. That's where a subsidy in equity would be needed even in a low interest rate economy.

We tried that with the housing credit (which effectively became a house downpayment) -- it didn't exactly stimulate much, at least not in the long term.

Until we start saying no to the rich, and things equalize a bit I'm saying yes to the poor

Meh, two wrongs don't make a right. You never go forward by taking two steps back. Pick your idiom.

As a follow up. For those who have read Tom Wolf'e's "The Right Stuff", and remember the end of the book, Neil Armstrong had the right stuff!. The comment, I believe was partially in regard to ejecting from his plane at just the right/last minute. It was later he joined the astronaut corp. Some more background some might have missed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/space/armstrongfull.htm

As far as the stimulus working Ezra Klein has lots of links. Pick things like:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/did-the-stimulus-work-a-review-of-the-nine-best-studies-on-the-subject/2011/08/16/gIQAThbibJ_blog.html

No, in fact you can't. Because there's a bottom (at 0%). And even if interest rates were AT 0%, housing would still have been overvalued.

What does "overvalued" even me? Assuming interest rates were permanently at 1% and that inflation were equal to maintenance costs. Assume that a house has a rent equivalent of $1000 / mo (i.e. a $100-200k house under normal market conditions). Under the conditions of a 1% that house could easily cost over $1m and be "worth" over a million. The same way a 8% bond would trade for much more than face in a 1% interest rate economy.

20% of a huge number is still a relatively huge number.

Absolutely. That's where a subsidy in equity would be needed even in a low interest rate economy.

I can't. Rich or poor, people should be responsible for their mistakes. In fact, to some extent, they must be, else society will simply devolve into no one being responsible, because you'd be a sucker to do so.

I agree. But I'm tried of saying yes to the rich and no to the poor. Until we start saying no to the rich, and things equalize a bit I'm saying yes to the poor.

unwilling to debate and only to destroy.

Bwahaha! Are you for real?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-in-one-graph/2012/05/15/gIQAVHf0RU_blog.html

It's getting to the point where NOTHING gets done by ANYBODY. You know who's unwilling to debate and only to destroy? Every-fucking-one in congress. Lately, the republicans have been spearheading the initiative, but I have no doubt that if (and it's a BIG if) Romney's elected, the Dem's will do the same damn thing.

All these people saying "but your party does it tooooo!11!!1" are either blind or stupid; when you get kicked in the balls, and kick the guy who kicked you in the balls on the way down, all that's left is a writhing mess of retards. --- Congress.

Makers of vaccines are legally protected from lawsuits.

See [new news]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/22/AR2011022206008.html
or [established decades ago]: http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/index.html

Drunk driving vs. flu deaths? Wow....

I wish people would stop comparing vaccines with things wildly unrelated.

Except that this clause has already made it to the Supreme Court and has been upheld as valid. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/supreme-court-backs-binding-arbitration-agreements/2012/01/16/gIQAg4LuGQ_story.html

I think Science Debate is the greatest thing to happen to those of interested in science and politics. When they got Obama and McCain to answer science questions in the 2008 election, I immediately cancelled my membership to the Union of Concerned Scientists and started donating to this grassroots organization.

I have one issue that I vote on, and that's science. It's the only issue I understand well enough to evaluate the candidates on. If they know their science or have advisors that understand science, then I will trust them with most everything else. I summarized Obama's 2008 responses here, McCain's here, and my calls for who won on each issue. Obama's responses won on most issues, but McCain did not do poorly. Since Obama has taken office, he has impressed me with his support of science with Data.gov, Science.gov, a Memorandum on Scientific Integrity, proposed major increases in science funding, and put the Office of Science and Technology Policy back in the Whitehouse.

These might seem like small accomplishments, but compared to the Dark Ages of the Bush Administration they were a breath of fresh air. Unless Romney answers the science debate questions this election cycle, I won't even consider him.

If this were about uplifting kids or bringing news to the english-language disadvantaged OR SATIRE, I believe this concept may have merit. Unfortunately, I'm convinced this is nothing but a contributor to the dumbing down of culture/society. This is an appeal to the lowest common denominator and it should be soundly rejected as mainstream messaging.

Diluting and distilling the message creates more opportunity for message corruption and/or misinterpretation. But the problem extends beyond miscommunicating the facts. Skew and color (a.k.a. bias) is a natural byproduct of dilution and distillation. This is where journalism ends and marketing begins. When the vehicle of a message becomes as important as the message itself... this is not journalism. It is entertainment and/or advertising.

Cartoons are not new in the journalistic space. The political cartoon first appeared in 16th-century Germany during the Reformation, the first time such art became an active propaganda weapon with social implications. By the mid-19th cent. editorial cartoons had become regular features in American newspapers, and were soon followed by sports cartoons and humorous cartoons. England (1843); a series of drawings appeared in a publication called Punch that parodied the fresco cartoons submitted in a competition for the decoration of the new Houses of Parliament. Nonpolitical cartoons, typically humorous, became popular with the development of the color press, and in 1893 the first color cartoon appeared in the New York World. The New Yorker and the Saturday Evening Post were among the most notable American magazines to use outstanding single cartoon drawings. In this way cartoon, in journalistic parlance, came to mean any single humorous or satirical drawing employing distortion for emphasis, often accompanied by a caption or a legend.

As a society, we must be clear on what quality journalism is... and what defines news. When Fox News Channel and Christian Broadcasting Network can present tabloid, yellow journalism or fantastic, mythical distortions of reality and characterizing their products as "Fair and Balanced" or "Good News", something has gone horribly wrong with the general understanding of journalism.

What's Dumbing Down Journalism
Dumbing Down - Implications
Is online media dumbing down journalism?
Dumbing Down Journalism - The Rise of American Propoganda

Society must demand quality journalism and if they do not understand what quality journalism, philosopher kings must be ever vigilent against the intrusion of pretenders. Society must be uplifted by journalism. Journalism should not cater to the lowest common denominator. Cartoons that do not confine their scope to children, special language needs audiences, or satire present a slippery slope and usher the decent of journalism into a hell of misinformation.

Akin's comments were tasteless and ignorant of current knowledge/data, but since no one else is coming to his defense, I will.

There are two aspects of his comments to which people take offense. To get the first out of the way quickly, "legitimate rape", the 2004 Maryland case of "delayed withdrawal of consent" is an example of "rape" that is not "legitimate".

Why exactly is that not "legitimate"? As Maryland's Court of Appeals ruled in that very case, "The crime of first-degree rape includes post-penetration vaginal intercourse accomplished through force or threat of force and without the consent of the victim, even if the victim consented to the initial penetration."

If a woman tells you to stop, and knowing that she does not consent, you disregard her lack of consent and continue having sex with her, that sure does sound like "legitimate" rape. People bring up this case in an attempt to argue that a woman could say no during sex and a millisecond later, you're a rapist. You're not. It doesn't work that way. The crime of rape, as with all crimes, requires intent. You must intentionally continue farking while knowing you don't have consent. If you reasonably believed you had consent - like you would in that millisecond, and probably for several seconds before the words travel to your brain - then you're not committing rape.

Here's an analogy... Say you're kickboxing or doing MMA with someone. You punch them several times, but they've consented to the match and it's therefore not battery. At some point, they go down and you dive on them to get in several more punches. Are you committing battery? Nope, match isn't over, you still reasonably believe you have consent.
The ref shouts stop and starts pulling you off, while you get in one more punch. Is it battery now? You don't have consent and the match is over... but it's only been a second, and so you reasonably still believe you have consent.
Then, you do a bit of mugging for the crowd and cheering your victory while the ref fans the guy back into consciousness. People are applauding and your trainer is starting to enter the ring... and then you turn around and kick the guy in the head. Battery? Oh, hells yeah. Even "legitimate" battery.

In other words, consent can certainly be withdrawn. When your actions become criminal is not that instant, but when you reasonably recognize that consent has been withdrawn... and then still act. Intentionally continuing to fark someone after they've said "no, stop," and you recognize that they've withdrawn consent is "legitimate" rape.

Go ahead and check for yourself.

Take a look at who's behaving rabidly - the religion of peace once again:

http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/have-you-seen-the-rioters-who-vandalized-the-amar-jawan-memorial-254715

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/hindus-from-pakistan-flee-to-india-citing-religious-persecution/2012/08/15/adf09888-e6e4-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

So let's not always reflexively force ourselves into a game of moral equivalency. All religions are not identical, and some religions have features which pose more problems for others.

Romney has a clearly laid out plan for what he wants to do. You may not like the plan, but he has one.

As numerous sources have pointed out, his proposals do not work mathematically. Coming to even this conclusion is problematic because Romney maintains his budget proposals cannot be scored". I don't think this satisfies a common-sense definition of a "clear plan."

Meanwhile Obama and Democrats in general have failed to produce a budget for THREE FUCKING YEARS. How can you vote for that kind of nonsense?

The OMB submits a budget recommendation every year. The House also passes a budget every year, the last one was passed under the Budget Control Act.

You're confusing a knock against Senate Democrats with a knock against Barack Obama, a complaint which is itself baseless and relying on semantics.

Says someone completely ignorant of the facts. Just look at this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/for-first-time-since-depression-more-mexicans-leave-us-than-enter/2012/04/23/gIQApyiDdT_story.html for example.

To begin with, a lot of those entering the US from Mexico and other central American countries were poor, unskilled workers who benefited from the socialist nature of American "capitalism" (things such as the minimum wage, free medical care at any hospital, etc.) which naturally would appeal to them. Or people where the lack of free markets in the US create a benefit for them (for example, doctors and hospitals are very competitive in South America, they act more like monopolies in the US). There are a whole lot of people who would rather have comfort than freedom, when given the choice between a completely free life with no government handouts and a life filled with rules, regulations and restrictions with government handouts a lot of them are going to pick the latter option.

I can see the US having "entrepreneur drain" as young people quickly realize that there is an entire world out there to explore and many places where it is easier and more profitable (not just in dollars but in quality of life) to run a business outside of the USA. Just look at Eduardo Saverin who left the US for greener pastures in Asia.

You must edit Wikipedia a lot, because you clearly missed and/or chose to ignore the facts regarding that accident. Mitt Romney was NOT AT Fault. For those too lazy to read the linked articles, "A car heading north at about 60 mph missed a curve, barreled over a hill and veered into Romney's southbound lane. The car slammed into the front of the Citroen..."

> If Obama would've taken even a half-hearted swing and [sic] curbing the annual, national deficits, I'd listen

President Obama pushed for a four trillion dollar deficit reduction plan. And he kept pushing for it over and over.

There was even a framework along those lines written by the bipartisan Gang of Six. Note that President Obama and 40 or 50 odd senators from both sides of the aisle expressed support for the bipartisan plan.

But thanks to the Tea Party, the supposedly "fiscally conservative" Republican Party rejected it and anything like it. So instead of four trillion in deficit reduction, we got stuck with only two.

> If Obama would've taken even a half-hearted swing and [sic] curbing the annual, national deficits, I'd listen

President Obama pushed for a four trillion dollar deficit reduction plan. And he kept pushing for it over and over.

There was even a framework along those lines written by the bipartisan Gang of Six. Note that President Obama and 40 or 50 odd senators from both sides of the aisle expressed support for the bipartisan plan.

But thanks to the Tea Party, the supposedly "fiscally conservative" Republican Party rejected it and anything like it. So instead of four trillion in deficit reduction, we got stuck with only two.

I wasn't trying to equate the stance against science w/ abortion clinic bombings, though I see that may come across in the thread.

I am worried, specifically about the stance that is being taken by the far right against science. Things like the text books in Texas changing based on religious views, removing critical thinking education , and denying climatology based on religion.

This is based on 2 minutes of googling. I am sure i could come up w/ more. You yourself admit that you don't believe in evolution. This theory is excellently proven and you can see it in action. you admit it yourself for giraffes. but based on the bible, are you saying you believe in a 6000 year old universe?

You mention the earth revolving around the sun, how long was that proven before the church changed its mind on that one?

Roberts legislated from the bench when he decided to make a political rather than legal decision, effectively handing the presidency to Romney.

Whose own Massachusetts health car bill Obamacare was based on? And that's the single thing people will be voting for this election? The economy has no part of it? The fact that Romney was getting rich by shipping jobs overseas and destroying American companies? The Romney that has the same MBA as the President who crashed the economy and started the mess we're in? The Romney who refuses to loose his tax returns? The Romney who said "I like to fire people?" The Romney who just yesterday made the same stupid mistake the mass murderer in Wisconsin did? The same Romney whose plan to fix the economy is to tax the middle class more and himself less? The same Romney that pissed fourigners off with his retarded statements about their countries when he was visiting them? The same Romney who seems even more like Bush than Obama does?

Have you seen the polls? Last I saw, Romney was only ahead in one of the swing states, and those are the states that will decide the election. What does Romney have going for him, besides the fact that he was the least insane and evil of all the other Republican candidates?

and have them install a critical software update to avoid exploits.

I love how Cisco did something along these lines recently, including the siphoning off of web history, along with a slew of other privacy violations completely in the clear, with no permission whatsoever.

Another possible point of hypocrisy is the CIA's partial funding of Facebook, which seems to suggest that if a foreign company wants to build a network in the US, that is government funded, it's a National Security issue... but if a domestic company, which is funded by the US government, wants to build a network all over the world, and a foreign government says, "Um, no." then it's censorship.

There is also the fact that Huawei has hired a former defense contractor for the US government as it's Chief Security Officer.

You get the full article, rather than 4 pages that eventually require you to "sign in" or "register", if you access the PRINT option.
Link HERE

Oh, trust me, I'm familiar with Wikipedia's rules. WP:BLP. It does not say what you think it says. In particular, the purpose of WP:BLP -- summarized as "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced--whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable--should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" -- is to stop improperly sourcing material from appearing in someone's biography; it became Wikipedia policy after someone was accused of being part of a killing conspiracy with no references or other reliable information backing up the assertion, and Wikipedia being shamed in the media for this.

Romney's bullying incident does not violate WP:BLP because the accusations have been made and repeated in a number of reliable sources: Starting with the original Washington Post report and by countless other well-renowned news reporting sources, such as The New York Times, Fox News, the BBC, etc.

WP:UNDUE states that "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." A Google search for "Romney Cranbrook site:news_source.com" and clicking on the first link is how I found the above articles (I put in "Romney Cranbrook" in BBC's search box instead of using Google but got the same results). The only significant reporting about Romney's days at Cranbrook in the mainstream press has been about this bullying incident. Wikipedia's Mitt Romney article violates WP:UNDUE. It violates WP:UNDUE because the only significant view about Romney's days at Cranbrook posted by reliable sources is about his bullying incident. Wikipedia has over 120 words describing his days at Cranbrook but not a single mention of his bullying.

The bottom line is this: There is a group of people who are trying their utmost to engage in Orwellian 1984-style suppression of Mitt Romney's high school bullying incident at the Wikipedia. So far, they have succeeded. This kind of deliberate suppression of information is not Conservative; it is downright fascist. The fact that some moderators here at Slashdot have tried to suppress my postings pointing out this Orwellian behavior does not impress me with this site.

If you check this wapo article . I guess it depends on your interpretation of "hit hard by stuxnet" . In Natanz about 1000 centrifuges were replaced during that time, or 10%, for whatever reason, and the Uranium production during 2010 was not lower.

No, some of their perceived "screw ups" were intentional, certainly not all of them. Bob was not a success commercially, but it gave them a lot of technology that they reused in later products.

Vista had many things that were intentional. For example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201504.html

As much as I hate to bring politics into it, I like this one: Colbert skewers Texas GOP on ‘critical thinking’

Note that by your logic, we'd have Freedom of the Press as long as the government didn't put more than, say, a 1,000,000% tax on printer's ink (that wouldn't be a "ban", just a tax).

Obvious strawman is obvious. Any reasonable person would see that a 1,000,000% tax on printer's ink is specifically designed to ban freedom of the press. Any reasonable person will also acknowledge that banning assault weapons is not banning access to guns for purposes that do not conflict with public safety.

Oddly enough, the Supremes disagree with you.

Oddly enough, you're wrong. As recently as June 29, 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed the right to bear arms; however, "The 5 to 4 decision does not strike down any gun control laws, nor does it elaborate on what kind of laws would offend the Constitution." (citation)

This drunken pirate says otherwise. Anything you post may be used against you, given the right circumstances.

If you look at actual numbers rather than relative numbers: "Most Americans (84 percent) exceed their parents income at a similar stage....Among sons, 59 percent had higher inflation-adjusted wages and salaries than their fathers." (source).

He thinks algebra is bad but thinks all kids should learn something so fundamentally nonuseful as long division? (Yes I know it's useful once you get to polynomial division, but that's algebra ... It's often not even taught in calculus where it becomes useful to integrate rational functions.)

I teach at the university level, and from time to time I teach non-math majors, and I don't think the problem is that algebra is too hard. It is that the amount of effort students put into studying has gone significantly down. See:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/college-inc/post/five-colleges-where-students-study/2012/05/22/gIQAK0gvhU_blog.html

On average, students now spend 15 hours studying per week compared to 24 in 1960. The problem is not algebra, it is facebook, iphone, internet in general, grade inflation, and role models nowdays being those that made a lot of money with no effort compared to astronauts in the 1960s.

I had my wife visit one of my calculus classes once and she sat in the back row. There was about half the class present (normal if you don't require attendance in a large lecture). Half of the remaining half was playing with their iphones and ipads or whatnot (no, not taking notes on them). And that was a calculus class where majority were engineers, students who are generally more interested in math. I know how pre-calculus can run and it can be depressing that no matter how hard you try to make the subject interesting (and approachable) you have at most one or two people in a class who pay attention and do what one would consider "well". Then due to grade inflation, most of the students pass anyway without getting much out of the class.

I had to take all sorts of classes as an undergrad (including political science) and I enjoyed every one of them. I had to work more in some than in others, though of course liberal arts classes were usually easiest to get an A without an effort. It's easy to get an A in art class for example, without having a shred of artistic talent. I found almost all these classes were doable with just going to class, doing homework and no extra studying. Comparing grades of different subjects is total nonsense. Would we improve the situation if we just gave everyone an A in math?

In summary, I don't think that anyone capable of being good in any field taught in a university can't pass an algebra class given a bit of effort. If it is not important to you to put in the effort, then your own field is not very important to you either. Why would it be an advantage to have an unmotivated person like that graduate?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-government-is-the-looter/2012/05/18/gIQAUIKVZU_story.html

It's much worse than what I've said. Some people commit a crime on your property and they seize your property.

It happens occasionally.

There are a lot of causal expressions that are in common usage which if followed to their roots, will be found to have a sexual connotation. And there are just enough female workers looking for any excuse to file a complaint.

Stop being niggardly. That can get you fired when ignorant people don't know the difference between the word "niggardly" and some other word:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/twitter-users-in-uk-us-experience-issues-site-appears-down-day-before-start-of-olympics/2012/07/26/gJQADAwXBX_story.html

Some of us do not live in markets that Verizon serves. And Verizon is not rolling out any new fiber (I could be wrong).

Someone is paying attention.

From a randomly selected source

[Posted at 02:58 PM ET, 12/08/2011] And even though [Verizon Chief Executive Lowell McAdam] insisted that Verizon will rigorously promote its FiOS video and Internet service in areas that compete with cable, the company said it doesn't have plans to expand the expensive fiber network beyond what's already been announced and scheduled for buildout over the next couple years.

And that legit supplier goes by the name eBay

According to the washington post: Ebay also agreed to take steps to remove listings of these items, according to the CPSC.

The Buckeyballs are marketed to 14-year-olds.

Citations please?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-suit-targets-maker-of-buckyballs-magnets-citing-dangers-for-children/2012/07/25/gJQA1lDg9W_print.html

In May 2010, the company voluntarily recalled 175,000 Buckyball sets at the commission’s request because their labels said products were intended for ages 13 and older. Federal rules prohibit such loose magnets from being sold to kids younger than 14

In the case of the infant who died, it seems that the parents were aware of the danger of small objects and tried to keep the magnetic toy away from the infant. He got it anyway.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101897.html It's impossible to keep small magnets away from young children even with the best efforts.

The Buckeyballs are marketed to 14-year-olds. Are you saying that 14-year-olds should be held responsible if younger children ingest them?

The only way to resolve this is in court. We'll see whether the jury thinks Zucker has any responsibility.

In the case of the infant who died, the parents were aware of the danger, they made sure the older children didn't play with the toys when the infant was around, and the infant still found the magnets and swallowed them somehow. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101897.html

What are you going to say? "Gotcha! You weren't careful enough!"

Right. There was one death from a similar magnetic toy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/31/AR2006033101897.html

There have been several cases of children who swallowed them, and needed surgery to remove them.