Oh, and for all of you that thought the dems would be different, I really will respect you in the morning. Really.
Assuming you meant this in line of Ds being different from Republicans in terms of confusing issues and spinning things, I'd like to agree with you......but you're still wrong.
Look at the last two years of American politics and tell me with a straight face that they were anywhere close. Republicans have been chanting about death panels, Obama's birth certificate, stressing "Hussein", and doing everything they could to cloud every single issue. Republicans couldn't even stand up and vote for the policies they themselves advocated simply because the Democrats were the one proposing them.
Democrats, on the other hand, largely influenced by Obama's Admin., have co-opted Republican ideas all along the way and have tried very hard to be pragmatic and introduce whatever reforms they could pass.
The two parties couldn't be further apart right now. Yes, they're both to the right of the socialists, and yes, they're both to the left of the KKK... but they are absolutely different on nearly every conceivable measure. Democrats have been attempting to engage in a real debate over policy (and engaging in some minor spin) while Republicans have been fighting everything 100% simply because they want people like you to feel this way.
Deny the Democrats any victories or achievements, disillusion the young, discourage minorities from voting (they actually did run ads telling immigrants not to vote this year), stir up controversy to bring the old folks out voting--these are the pillars of Republican strategy for 2008-2012... and the saddest part is that it's working.
South Africa is a third world country? Really? That's a bit disingenuous. That's like saying you live in Simi Valley, CA and talking about what it's like on the mean streets of Compton....
Both sides' preferences can be ranked as follows: 1-way flow of info in their favor > 2-way flow of info > 1-way flow against / no flow
Knowing this, either party will try to make this exchange as one-way as possible, and both sides always have an incentive to switch strategies. The only way to break this is to have complete, perfect information along with the proper trust along with some sort of deterrent... So Facebook has to know that Google can and will hurt them and vice versa.
I'm only really familiar with stag hunt as a model for the cold war, but this seems to be a closer model than prisoner's dilemma.
So NO it not just as easy as snaking a cable from your PC.
I know all this becasue i spent the last decade trying to make a HTPC that is as easy to use as a plug-in piece of hardware.
Hahahah FAIL.
1) Buy a small quite box that can sit near your TV w/ HDMI and hi-def capabilities
a) Acer Revo
b) Zotac Mag
c).... 2) Install XBMC
Speaking of "hahaha FAIL"...
your steps vs. just using the PS3/xbox/Wii that's already hooked up to the TV... hmm... which is cheaper, easier, and gives the same results as far as the average user is concerned?
Yet no one seems to mind watching trailers (and now ads for new gadgets or deals at local businesses) before a movie at the theatre.
oh wait, on second thought... that's probably why attendance is down at the theatre (despite this new rage called 3D:p)
It's an oversimplification, but people do vote with their wallet.
Well, that and the fact that "dinner and a movie" is now about as expensive as "three dinners". Seriously, it's nearly $20/person if you watch the 3D movies and split a popcorn.
All for the privilege of being told that you "wouldn't steal a car", watching a few other moral lessons and half a dozen previews, then sitting through an overly-loud movie while teenagers talk and giggle behind you.... or, for the price of 5-10 movie tickets you could just buy a blu-ray player and enjoy a movie on the couch.
I'd say the advancements in home theater are also a big factor here.
People understand the idea of paying to get a service. You pay the cable company to get cable TV. For that you are a stupendous amount of channels that they deliver. However the programs themselves are separate, those require ads. Fine. When you buy an addon though, that is no ads. So you buy HBO. Those channels cost extra. Fine, you are paying to have no ads. It is a cost separate from the service.
Well now things are on the Internet. Again, people are ok with paying for the Internet. You pay the cable company, they give you Internet. Wonderful. However the content on the Internet is different, some of it has ads. Also fine. Then you have some pay for services on the Internet, like Netflix. Costs money, instead of ads. Also good.
This falls in the new category of "You have to pay for it on top of your service AND get ads." I don't think it is going to fly, particularly not given that there are alternatives. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
I don't think it'll fly, either, but not because of the ads. People pay all the time for ad-filled TV channels: Comedy Central, AMC, National Geographic, all the others that may not come with a basic cable subscription.
I'm not a fan of that, but people seem to have no problem doing it.
That said, I have no idea why I would pay $10/month for hulu, knowing that I am getting an inferior and artificially-restricted service. I can get higher quality video delivered faster via torrent, and I can get it without commercials and with an easy method of overlaying subtitles. Other than the legality, why would anyone choose hulu instead?
Just give me the damned $10/month license and let me acquire the TV shows however I want. If you turn the volume down in the commercials, I might actually voluntarily watch a few of them.
Athens was an oligarchy, you had to be racially and economically privilged to get a vote.
It all depends on your definitions. They were basically the most democratic state in the world at the time... and the US wasn't any better until fairly recently.
By plenty of [valid] definitions, the US either isn't a democracy or wasn't until very recently.
Actually, I'd say for the GP's hypothetical, your best choice is to run away as fast as you can while there are still free elections.
It's either going to be Hitler or Stalin... and you know it's going to be damned tough to get out of there as soon as either of them takes power.
Now the real question is whether it's worth it to stay in the US and retain your assets or sell everything and emigrate in order to avoid the embarrassment of living under President Palin.
...If inalienable, fundamental human rights can have reasonable limitations, why not the practice of tracking people who did not ask to be tracked?
I'm sorry, I think you must be confused. You see, there actually ARE laws about stalking, but they only apply to the lower form of human life: individuals.
By definition, limitations on human rights only apply to humans. Corporations now have human rights, but limits don't apply to them because they were born without original sin.
By the way, the biggest increase in insurance premiums I ever saw where those that happened after Obamacare was passed.
Stop that.
NOTHING from "Obamacare" has gone into effect yet.
Not true. As of today, this is what I can recall is already in effect: State-run high risk insurance pools for people with preexisting conditions (these are VERY affordable) Small business tax credit up to 35% of employer's contribution for health insurance Pre-existing conditions for children? No longer allowed Lifetime limits? gone. Annual limits? restricted Recission? Gone. Coverage for dependents? Extended to age 26 Reporting requirements for medical loss ratios are now in place. Rebate checks will have to be sent if they don't keep these below certain levels. Part "D" Donut hole? Rebates already in effect Medicaid has been expanded (states allowed to extend to 133% of federal poverty level)... and about a dozen more I can't recall. There's an even longer list set to go into effect in 2012.
Health insurance premiums have been rising at 4x the rate of inflation for a decade or more now. This year's health insurance premium rates were almost certainly calculated before the bill was passed.
Also, calling it "Obamacare" is a big red flag saying "Hi, I am repeating tea party talking points without any capacity for original thought".
I agree entirely re: calling it "Obamacare". Obama's biggest mistake was staying so far away from the bill and trying to return power to Congress. He said he'd be happy with whatever they did, and they delivered just enough to disillusion the Democratic base.
Some premiums were almost certainly raised in an effort to get them up before some of the restrictions on premiums went into effect, though... but eventually the other requirements in this bill will force those rates down in various ways.
The funniest thing is how closely this whole piece of legislation mirrors Mitt Romney's plan as well as the Republican counter-proposal to Hillary Clinton's. This act was basically written by Republicans.... hell, the mandate was their idea.
Outside of my field, of course, but isn't there a competition issue?
IIRC, mutated viruses/fungii/bacteria also have to compete with the original for resources/space/etc. So.. couldn't it be possible that the slow killing of the viruses actually helps subdue adaptation by the viruses because they're competing with the original for survival, and the extra expenses incurred by the adaptation to fight this process put the mutated virus at a competitive disadvantage, thus allowing it to be killed off?
I realize that wasn't really coherent, but I don't know how to word it better, and I'm sure you'll understand it well enough to be able to tell me I'm an idiot or that I'm right/partially right.
I'm "meh" on curing the common cold too, but I have a feeling this will ultimately lead to significant progress on OTHER anti-virals... Curing the common cold could end up being a great first step towards curing HPV, HIV, HSV, etc.
But I admit I haven't read the article, nor is this my field, so I could be totally off base here.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
Congress has to appropriate funds to move the detainees, house them somewhere, and ultimately properly close down Guantanamo. Congress decided against doing this, leaving Obama in a weak position.
I do think we're either miscommunicating or misunderstanding something here, especially since I usually find your posts very enlightening, so I will try to clarify.
I'm not sure I'm seeing where you're getting that view from the linked article, but I'll try to guess. Either way, I was actually talking about the published paper, and it's most certainly not in there in the way you described/interpreted. I could have been more clear about that.
Let me also say that my main issue is not with you but with scientific journalism and the reactions it tends to cause. People see shoddy summaries like this, or a very short and imprecise article (as linked), and they see glaring holes in the research. When you actually read the papers, though, these holes almost always prove to be illusory, yet few will read the papers so they come away with the idea that most scientists are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
That's why I *usually* refrain from commenting on the quality or methods of any research without reading the published papers. It's a pet peeve of mine when people dismiss novel research because of perceived, simple errors that the researchers didn't actually make. I feel it continually undermines science and it's been increasingly used (mainly by conservatives) to discredit policy positions based on good research.
Back on topic real quick...
From the linked article:
it is the crucial interaction of two factors – the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence – that is associated with being more liberal.
I'm guessing this is where you got the view that they're using a recursive definition. If so, I can see that... but in the context of the actual paper, it's pretty clear they're talking about statistical association with liberalism rather than just being "associated with liberalism". There appears to be a pretty strong interactive relationship (in the technical sense). IIRC, people were asked to self-identify as liberal and research was cited showing the % of Americans who can accurately do this based on an accepted definition.
They definitely used an accepted definition of liberalism, and cited multiple credible sources as they introduced that section of the paper.
IMO, the truly scary answer is that the government can not actually control the entrenched bureaucracies. There are plenty of presidential quotes on the subject, from both parties, and in my experience they're all true.
The President can issue orders, and Congress can alter funding and some of the rules, but all too often the bureaucrats can simply ignore them and do what they want.
The idea that anyone could still have some useful intelligence to give up after sitting in a cell at Gitmo for 8 years is pretty ridiculous.
Not really. 8 years is a pretty short timeframe when we're talking about strategic (rather than tactical) intel. You don't think a retired CIA director still has valuable info in his head after 8 years? What about a cryptanalyst from NSA?
Some of this stuff really doesn't have an expiration date on its impact. There's still a ton of stuff we don't know about events during the Cold War that would really shock citizens on both sides to learn. Hell, it's possible that secrets from the Mexican-American War could affect current US-Mexico relations if they were revealed.
I agree, except that "failed to stop it" kind of implies that they tried.
"Republicans started it, democrats continued it" is more fitting.
Can't it be both?
IIRC, Obama DID try to close Gitmo pretty shortly after being sworn in. Don't you remember all those congressmen fear-mongering about how Barrack Hussein Obama wanted to put terrorists in our backyard and bring them to the US? IIRC (again), Republicans kicked off that fear-mongering, Fox fueled it, and some Democrats joined in. This meant that Obama could do nothing about it because, ultimately, everything needs 60 votes in the Senate these days.
I could be wrong about all of my recollections, but I was paying quite a bit of attention to politics at the time.
You're right. You have proven that. That's easy to do because what you have proven IS my point: creature comforts, marginal effects aside, do not lead to production of wealth...What has been proven is your level of reading comprehension is atrocious
If that was your point, you should have written that instead of "those who DO have $700 Aeron chairs do so because they are creating wealth, not just absorbing material... The expensive chair sat upon is a consequence of productivity, not a primary means thereto."
You based your argument on an individual example, implying that you were referring to the chair being a consequence of that person's productivity rather than society's. You also clarified that you were talking about individuals and their creation of wealth. You then went on to say that the chair was a "consequence, not a primary means thereto".
The fault lies in your inability or lack of desire to clearly articulate precisely what you mean, not in my inability to comprehend what you wrote. You can't expect me to understand what you meant rather than what you wrote without much more context and background. I'm sure (well, I hope) you don't tell your students to "write papers in a style" then fail them for using APA instead of MLA.
I apologize for attacking the argument you wrote rather than the one you intended to write. If you meant to say that a $700 chair probably isn't the best investment for an underfunded or underperforming school/student, I agree with you.
As for the rest of your reply...
I think it was pretty clear that I was talking about funding in education during the formative years, although I could have been more specific. Your university/college example does counter the notion that additional creature comforts would be beneficial in colleges, but it doesn't support your original entire thesis:
The "to improve education, throw more money at it" crowd fails to realize that by far the biggest factor in education is the student's own willingness to learn.
If you meant "the biggest factor in higher education is the student's own willingness to learn", you should have written that instead. My rebuttal against what you actually wrote still stands: for a very large portion of the educational system, funding has one of the largest, most widely interactive relationships I know of. My examples dealt entirely with lower education as I'm not all that concerned with increasing funding to higher education for the same reasons you aren't.
Obviously there is a point below which a lack of creature comforts impedes learning. I argued that, in many schools, funding is so low that "throwing more money at it" (to include the procurement of functional furniture, paper, and even chalk) really will solve or alleviate many problems.
Likewise, there is a point beyond which you would expect diminishing returns. This would certainly apply to most university students in the US.
If I had known you were a professor, I probably would have inferred that you were primarily concerned with postsecondary education. Nothing in your post, however, states this, and this article was discussing use of these chairs in the full spectrum of educational institutions.
I've heard the figure that driving an electric would produce less pollution powered by the dirtiest coal power plant in West Virginia than a Prius powered by gas.[Citation Needed]
Obviously the figures improve if you produce some of that electricity from cleaner sources... and it's nearly free pollution-wise if you're charging the cars from spare nuclear capacity at night. Additionally, pollution controls at centralized power plants are relatively cheaper and more efficient. It's probably a lot more efficient to put scrubbers on all our coal-fired plants than to install catalytic converters on millions of vehicles.
IMO, the hardest part is going to be getting gasoline-powered cars replaced with electric cars. This is going to be a very long and slow process because of its distributed nature, consumer preferences, and expected lifetimes of all the cars currently in use. If we start pushing electric more heavily next year, we'll be lucky to have 50% of cars electric by 2030 without massive subsidies to take old cars off the road.
By contrast, we know when power plants are scheduled for decommission and we can easily speed up their replacement or refurbishment with cleaner technologies.
The particular definition of "liberal" used by the article was "being able to consider the viewpoints of lots of different friends".
No, it wasn't. In fact, that definition would never stand up to peer-review because it's so fundamentally flawed and circular. They're saying that this gene affects sympathizing with other points of view and friends which affects whether or not people have a liberal ideology... and they tested for liberal ideology by asking people to self-identify as liberal, conservative, etc.
This doesn't match ANY political party. But it's reflected in all of them.
In particular this particular theory held that if you have this genetic variation, then you are more willing to sympathize with the viewpoints of friends that you have during adolescence. To presume that this will make one "Liberal" is presuming something about the range of views of your friends.
...actually, no. Conservatism is, by definition, resistance to change (wanting to maintain the status quo or go back to a previous status quo).
I have not finished reading the actual paper, BUT... their hypothesis seems to be that this allele ultimately affects both the desire and ability to make new and more diverse friends, and that the "combination of the desire for new experience and many different pathways to these experience...has an impact on political ideology." (Fowler et al. 8)
This makes a lot of sense in light of previous research regarding conservatism. It doesn't explain ALL conservatives or ALL liberals, but it should certainly be seen as one of many factors. Fear of change is another, very direct, factor, so on the surface you would absolutely expect that those who seek novelty are more likely to be liberal (which seeks change) than conservative (which avoids change).
Insofar as I do have a nice new chair now (my first), may I observe that those who DO have $700 Aeron chairs do so because they are creating wealth, not just absorbing material. (Those unclear on rules of logic are reminded that the last sentence does not mean those who do not have an expensive chair are not creating wealth.)...The expensive chair sat upon is a consequence of productivity, not a primary means thereto.
More conservative, holier-than-thou drivel. "I have the creature comforts because I deserve them because I CREATE wealth!" Bullocks. While this is true in some cases, it is not the end-all, be-all explanation. Comfort in a free/semi-free market economy comes from having adequate means to acquire it. This could be by stealing it directly, by stealing cash which is then used to buy creature comforts, by stealing something which is sold or traded for cash which is used to buy creature comforts, by simply inheriting either the creature comforts or the wealth that enables them, or any number of myriad other possibilities I have not imagined. In case you're unclear on the rules of logic, I'm also not implying that YOU don't create wealth, don't deserve creature comforts, or anything else... but I am proving that your argument absolutely fails to establish any causal relationship between having creature comforts and producing wealth. As such, it really doesn't contribute to this discussion.
I understand, though, that what you're really trying to say is: "people who can't afford it don't deserve to have it". But this discussion isn't about whether they deserve anything, it's about the effects of various investments on education outcomes. Let's see if you make a better argument there.
The "to improve education, throw more money at it" crowd fails to realize that by far the biggest factor in education is the student's own willingness to learn. If they don't want to be there, students will squirm just as much in an expensive chair as a cheap one, and get just as little out of the experience.
Yet again you oversimplify to a serious fault. First, I demand data and experiments demonstrating your assertion that students' "willingness to learn" is the biggest obstacle... and it had better be from peer-reviewed sources, not some self-righteous conservablog.
Second, you're assuming (and again, baldly asserting) a simple one-way causative relationship, but you have failed entirely to address intervening and confounding variables (and that's not the only problem with your statement). You don't think willingness is AFFECTED by the money thrown at education? Seriously? You don't think a school with a larger budget can attract better teachers who can affect the motivation of their students? You don't think the quality of facilities has an effect on student motivation?
Since you brought your own anecdote... When I was in high school, one of my most motivated and inspiring teachers was in his first year of teaching. Because the pay was so bad and support staff so minimal, he got discouraged by the 12+ hour workdays and near-poverty wages within the first year and left teaching. His departure, directly due to underfunding, led to a reduction in the average quality of teachers at that school... and discouraged me from ever becoming a teacher myself.
I had great parents and grew up in an average city. My childhood wasn't all that terrible, and I felt like I could have a great career when I grew up. If my mother was a crack whore and my father some John, I probably wouldn't have felt like an education would pay off for me--it would be fairly reasonable to see that my best bet in life would be to become the best thug, pimp, or drug dealer in town. If my school was falling apart, I would not have wanted to go there, and I would not have associated education with success. If my teachers had been paid less, they would not have been as happy in life or as motivated to teach. If my chair had a leg missing I would have had some trouble sitting in it and concentrating in class.
No, I presume that we learn things by trying, and it's better to know than not know. If we make a mistake, the liberals will be the first to suggest change, while the conservatives will want things to stay the same.
Hey, nobody is more open to experimentation than the conservatives. How else do you explain all the "temporary homosexuals" in the religious right?
And they're not afraid to conduct experiments on other people, either. They just want all experiments to be conducted on dark-skinned people.*
*I kid, somewhat. Clearly not all conservatives are racists, but most racists are conservative, and racism has long been a driving force in American conservative movements... and this statement ties in nicely with this research. The same independent variables studied here are commonly believed to be associated with racism.
To play devil's advocate here, if that's the case...what's their motivation? They've already been granted lifetime appointments, why would they need to give in to the demands/wishes of special interests or politicians?
Playing devil's advocate as well... it could be that, for them, ideology trumps pragmatism. That is, they don't really give a damn about the effects of the ruling, they simply feel that corporations should have more rights and be treated more like people.
If anything, the pragmatic view related to this should go against their decision. Judicial elections (at the lower levels) are already becoming dangerously corrupt and corporate/interest group-sponsored. Many of the sitting Justices have already made comments about this. I didn't read the whole ruling, but I don't recall this issue being mentioned at all.
ink that the difference is that the constitution also makes no mention of organizations or corporations has have ANY rights.
That's completely irrelevant. Read the plain text of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"
What part of "shall make no law" is so hard to understand?
THAT (your absurd extension and oversimplification of this) is completely irrelevant. Are you also saying that security clearances are unconstitutional because people can be imprisoned for revealing information (just speech, right)? What about inciting rebellion? How about the old fire in a crowded theater shtick?
Clearly there are limits on all rights, and those limits start right about the point where other rights begin in addition to what is required to maintain the state.
Do you think that Russia or another foreign government should be able to directly fund political ads in America? What about corporations majority-controlled by foreigners? What about corporations run by foreign states? Primarily foreign corporations? Organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce that accept substantial sums from these corporations?
In this case, I think most people can agree that the impact of Citizens United has been to allow corporations to directly influence the outcome of elections. Additionally, there's good reason to believe that foreign money has become mixed in with this. I highly doubt this was the intent of the founding fathers. Even if it was, I think most of us agree that this is not the best way to ensure real democracy in America.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and for all of you that thought the dems would be different, I really will respect you in the morning. Really.
Assuming you meant this in line of Ds being different from Republicans in terms of confusing issues and spinning things, I'd like to agree with you... ...but you're still wrong.
Look at the last two years of American politics and tell me with a straight face that they were anywhere close. Republicans have been chanting about death panels, Obama's birth certificate, stressing "Hussein", and doing everything they could to cloud every single issue. Republicans couldn't even stand up and vote for the policies they themselves advocated simply because the Democrats were the one proposing them.
Democrats, on the other hand, largely influenced by Obama's Admin., have co-opted Republican ideas all along the way and have tried very hard to be pragmatic and introduce whatever reforms they could pass.
The two parties couldn't be further apart right now. Yes, they're both to the right of the socialists, and yes, they're both to the left of the KKK... but they are absolutely different on nearly every conceivable measure. Democrats have been attempting to engage in a real debate over policy (and engaging in some minor spin) while Republicans have been fighting everything 100% simply because they want people like you to feel this way.
Deny the Democrats any victories or achievements, disillusion the young, discourage minorities from voting (they actually did run ads telling immigrants not to vote this year), stir up controversy to bring the old folks out voting--these are the pillars of Republican strategy for 2008-2012... and the saddest part is that it's working.
South Africa is a third world country? Really? That's a bit disingenuous. That's like saying you live in Simi Valley, CA and talking about what it's like on the mean streets of Compton....
I know EXACTLY who you're talking about ;)
GNAA member forgets to click "Post Anonymously"? Classic.
De-friended... I'll try to remember to link to your post whenever you spout your normal anti-Obama rhetoric, etc.
I'd say it's more of a stag hunt.
Both sides' preferences can be ranked as follows: 1-way flow of info in their favor > 2-way flow of info > 1-way flow against / no flow
Knowing this, either party will try to make this exchange as one-way as possible, and both sides always have an incentive to switch strategies. The only way to break this is to have complete, perfect information along with the proper trust along with some sort of deterrent... So Facebook has to know that Google can and will hurt them and vice versa.
I'm only really familiar with stag hunt as a model for the cold war, but this seems to be a closer model than prisoner's dilemma.
So NO it not just as easy as snaking a cable from your PC.
I know all this becasue i spent the last decade trying to make a HTPC that is as easy to use as a plug-in piece of hardware.
Hahahah FAIL.
1) Buy a small quite box that can sit near your TV w/ HDMI and hi-def capabilities
a) Acer Revo
b) Zotac Mag
c) ....
2) Install XBMC
Speaking of "hahaha FAIL"...
your steps vs. just using the PS3/xbox/Wii that's already hooked up to the TV... hmm... which is cheaper, easier, and gives the same results as far as the average user is concerned?
Yet no one seems to mind watching trailers (and now ads for new gadgets or deals at local businesses) before a movie at the theatre.
oh wait, on second thought... that's probably why attendance is down at the theatre (despite this new rage called 3D :p)
It's an oversimplification, but people do vote with their wallet.
Well, that and the fact that "dinner and a movie" is now about as expensive as "three dinners". Seriously, it's nearly $20/person if you watch the 3D movies and split a popcorn.
All for the privilege of being told that you "wouldn't steal a car", watching a few other moral lessons and half a dozen previews, then sitting through an overly-loud movie while teenagers talk and giggle behind you. ... or, for the price of 5-10 movie tickets you could just buy a blu-ray player and enjoy a movie on the couch.
I'd say the advancements in home theater are also a big factor here.
People understand the idea of paying to get a service. You pay the cable company to get cable TV. For that you are a stupendous amount of channels that they deliver. However the programs themselves are separate, those require ads. Fine. When you buy an addon though, that is no ads. So you buy HBO. Those channels cost extra. Fine, you are paying to have no ads. It is a cost separate from the service.
Well now things are on the Internet. Again, people are ok with paying for the Internet. You pay the cable company, they give you Internet. Wonderful. However the content on the Internet is different, some of it has ads. Also fine. Then you have some pay for services on the Internet, like Netflix. Costs money, instead of ads. Also good.
This falls in the new category of "You have to pay for it on top of your service AND get ads." I don't think it is going to fly, particularly not given that there are alternatives. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
I don't think it'll fly, either, but not because of the ads. People pay all the time for ad-filled TV channels: Comedy Central, AMC, National Geographic, all the others that may not come with a basic cable subscription.
I'm not a fan of that, but people seem to have no problem doing it.
That said, I have no idea why I would pay $10/month for hulu, knowing that I am getting an inferior and artificially-restricted service. I can get higher quality video delivered faster via torrent, and I can get it without commercials and with an easy method of overlaying subtitles. Other than the legality, why would anyone choose hulu instead?
Just give me the damned $10/month license and let me acquire the TV shows however I want. If you turn the volume down in the commercials, I might actually voluntarily watch a few of them.
Athens was an oligarchy, you had to be racially and economically privilged to get a vote.
It all depends on your definitions. They were basically the most democratic state in the world at the time... and the US wasn't any better until fairly recently.
By plenty of [valid] definitions, the US either isn't a democracy or wasn't until very recently.
Actually, I'd say for the GP's hypothetical, your best choice is to run away as fast as you can while there are still free elections.
It's either going to be Hitler or Stalin... and you know it's going to be damned tough to get out of there as soon as either of them takes power.
Now the real question is whether it's worth it to stay in the US and retain your assets or sell everything and emigrate in order to avoid the embarrassment of living under President Palin.
...If inalienable, fundamental human rights can have reasonable limitations, why not the practice of tracking people who did not ask to be tracked?
I'm sorry, I think you must be confused. You see, there actually ARE laws about stalking, but they only apply to the lower form of human life: individuals.
By definition, limitations on human rights only apply to humans. Corporations now have human rights, but limits don't apply to them because they were born without original sin.
By the way, the biggest increase in insurance premiums I ever saw where those that happened after Obamacare was passed.
Stop that.
NOTHING from "Obamacare" has gone into effect yet.
Not true. As of today, this is what I can recall is already in effect: ... and about a dozen more I can't recall. There's an even longer list set to go into effect in 2012.
State-run high risk insurance pools for people with preexisting conditions (these are VERY affordable)
Small business tax credit up to 35% of employer's contribution for health insurance
Pre-existing conditions for children? No longer allowed
Lifetime limits? gone. Annual limits? restricted
Recission? Gone.
Coverage for dependents? Extended to age 26
Reporting requirements for medical loss ratios are now in place. Rebate checks will have to be sent if they don't keep these below certain levels.
Part "D" Donut hole? Rebates already in effect
Medicaid has been expanded (states allowed to extend to 133% of federal poverty level)
Health insurance premiums have been rising at 4x the rate of inflation for a decade or more now. This year's health insurance premium rates were almost certainly calculated before the bill was passed.
Also, calling it "Obamacare" is a big red flag saying "Hi, I am repeating tea party talking points without any capacity for original thought".
I agree entirely re: calling it "Obamacare". Obama's biggest mistake was staying so far away from the bill and trying to return power to Congress. He said he'd be happy with whatever they did, and they delivered just enough to disillusion the Democratic base.
Some premiums were almost certainly raised in an effort to get them up before some of the restrictions on premiums went into effect, though... but eventually the other requirements in this bill will force those rates down in various ways.
The funniest thing is how closely this whole piece of legislation mirrors Mitt Romney's plan as well as the Republican counter-proposal to Hillary Clinton's. This act was basically written by Republicans.... hell, the mandate was their idea.
Outside of my field, of course, but isn't there a competition issue?
IIRC, mutated viruses/fungii/bacteria also have to compete with the original for resources/space/etc. So.. couldn't it be possible that the slow killing of the viruses actually helps subdue adaptation by the viruses because they're competing with the original for survival, and the extra expenses incurred by the adaptation to fight this process put the mutated virus at a competitive disadvantage, thus allowing it to be killed off?
I realize that wasn't really coherent, but I don't know how to word it better, and I'm sure you'll understand it well enough to be able to tell me I'm an idiot or that I'm right/partially right.
I'm "meh" on curing the common cold too, but I have a feeling this will ultimately lead to significant progress on OTHER anti-virals... Curing the common cold could end up being a great first step towards curing HPV, HIV, HSV, etc.
But I admit I haven't read the article, nor is this my field, so I could be totally off base here.
Thanks for prodding on this, I was working off a weak memory and had to look it up, but it actually supports my argument more than I care to admit.
Obama did issue an executive order to close Guantanamo on his second day in office.
A key provision:
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
Congress has to appropriate funds to move the detainees, house them somewhere, and ultimately properly close down Guantanamo. Congress decided against doing this, leaving Obama in a weak position.
He's a little article outlining roadblocks to closing Guantanamo.
I do think we're either miscommunicating or misunderstanding something here, especially since I usually find your posts very enlightening, so I will try to clarify.
I'm not sure I'm seeing where you're getting that view from the linked article, but I'll try to guess. Either way, I was actually talking about the published paper, and it's most certainly not in there in the way you described/interpreted. I could have been more clear about that.
Let me also say that my main issue is not with you but with scientific journalism and the reactions it tends to cause. People see shoddy summaries like this, or a very short and imprecise article (as linked), and they see glaring holes in the research. When you actually read the papers, though, these holes almost always prove to be illusory, yet few will read the papers so they come away with the idea that most scientists are idiots and don't know what they are talking about.
That's why I *usually* refrain from commenting on the quality or methods of any research without reading the published papers. It's a pet peeve of mine when people dismiss novel research because of perceived, simple errors that the researchers didn't actually make. I feel it continually undermines science and it's been increasingly used (mainly by conservatives) to discredit policy positions based on good research.
Back on topic real quick...
From the linked article:
it is the crucial interaction of two factors – the genetic predisposition and the environmental condition of having many friends in adolescence – that is associated with being more liberal.
I'm guessing this is where you got the view that they're using a recursive definition. If so, I can see that... but in the context of the actual paper, it's pretty clear they're talking about statistical association with liberalism rather than just being "associated with liberalism". There appears to be a pretty strong interactive relationship (in the technical sense). IIRC, people were asked to self-identify as liberal and research was cited showing the % of Americans who can accurately do this based on an accepted definition.
They definitely used an accepted definition of liberalism, and cited multiple credible sources as they introduced that section of the paper.
IMO, the truly scary answer is that the government can not actually control the entrenched bureaucracies. There are plenty of presidential quotes on the subject, from both parties, and in my experience they're all true.
The President can issue orders, and Congress can alter funding and some of the rules, but all too often the bureaucrats can simply ignore them and do what they want.
The idea that anyone could still have some useful intelligence to give up after sitting in a cell at Gitmo for 8 years is pretty ridiculous.
Not really. 8 years is a pretty short timeframe when we're talking about strategic (rather than tactical) intel. You don't think a retired CIA director still has valuable info in his head after 8 years? What about a cryptanalyst from NSA?
Some of this stuff really doesn't have an expiration date on its impact. There's still a ton of stuff we don't know about events during the Cold War that would really shock citizens on both sides to learn. Hell, it's possible that secrets from the Mexican-American War could affect current US-Mexico relations if they were revealed.
I agree, except that "failed to stop it" kind of implies that they tried.
"Republicans started it, democrats continued it" is more fitting.
Can't it be both?
IIRC, Obama DID try to close Gitmo pretty shortly after being sworn in. Don't you remember all those congressmen fear-mongering about how Barrack Hussein Obama wanted to put terrorists in our backyard and bring them to the US? IIRC (again), Republicans kicked off that fear-mongering, Fox fueled it, and some Democrats joined in. This meant that Obama could do nothing about it because, ultimately, everything needs 60 votes in the Senate these days.
I could be wrong about all of my recollections, but I was paying quite a bit of attention to politics at the time.
You're right. You have proven that. That's easy to do because what you have proven IS my point: creature comforts, marginal effects aside, do not lead to production of wealth...What has been proven is your level of reading comprehension is atrocious
If that was your point, you should have written that instead of "those who DO have $700 Aeron chairs do so because they are creating wealth, not just absorbing material... The expensive chair sat upon is a consequence of productivity, not a primary means thereto."
You based your argument on an individual example, implying that you were referring to the chair being a consequence of that person's productivity rather than society's. You also clarified that you were talking about individuals and their creation of wealth. You then went on to say that the chair was a "consequence, not a primary means thereto".
The fault lies in your inability or lack of desire to clearly articulate precisely what you mean, not in my inability to comprehend what you wrote. You can't expect me to understand what you meant rather than what you wrote without much more context and background. I'm sure (well, I hope) you don't tell your students to "write papers in a style" then fail them for using APA instead of MLA.
I apologize for attacking the argument you wrote rather than the one you intended to write. If you meant to say that a $700 chair probably isn't the best investment for an underfunded or underperforming school/student, I agree with you.
As for the rest of your reply...
I think it was pretty clear that I was talking about funding in education during the formative years, although I could have been more specific. Your university/college example does counter the notion that additional creature comforts would be beneficial in colleges, but it doesn't support your original entire thesis:
The "to improve education, throw more money at it" crowd fails to realize that by far the biggest factor in education is the student's own willingness to learn.
If you meant "the biggest factor in higher education is the student's own willingness to learn", you should have written that instead. My rebuttal against what you actually wrote still stands: for a very large portion of the educational system, funding has one of the largest, most widely interactive relationships I know of. My examples dealt entirely with lower education as I'm not all that concerned with increasing funding to higher education for the same reasons you aren't.
Obviously there is a point below which a lack of creature comforts impedes learning. I argued that, in many schools, funding is so low that "throwing more money at it" (to include the procurement of functional furniture, paper, and even chalk) really will solve or alleviate many problems.
Likewise, there is a point beyond which you would expect diminishing returns. This would certainly apply to most university students in the US.
If I had known you were a professor, I probably would have inferred that you were primarily concerned with postsecondary education. Nothing in your post, however, states this, and this article was discussing use of these chairs in the full spectrum of educational institutions.
In a nutshell...
I've heard the figure that driving an electric would produce less pollution powered by the dirtiest coal power plant in West Virginia than a Prius powered by gas.[Citation Needed]
Obviously the figures improve if you produce some of that electricity from cleaner sources... and it's nearly free pollution-wise if you're charging the cars from spare nuclear capacity at night. Additionally, pollution controls at centralized power plants are relatively cheaper and more efficient. It's probably a lot more efficient to put scrubbers on all our coal-fired plants than to install catalytic converters on millions of vehicles.
IMO, the hardest part is going to be getting gasoline-powered cars replaced with electric cars. This is going to be a very long and slow process because of its distributed nature, consumer preferences, and expected lifetimes of all the cars currently in use. If we start pushing electric more heavily next year, we'll be lucky to have 50% of cars electric by 2030 without massive subsidies to take old cars off the road.
By contrast, we know when power plants are scheduled for decommission and we can easily speed up their replacement or refurbishment with cleaner technologies.
The particular definition of "liberal" used by the article was "being able to consider the viewpoints of lots of different friends".
No, it wasn't. In fact, that definition would never stand up to peer-review because it's so fundamentally flawed and circular. They're saying that this gene affects sympathizing with other points of view and friends which affects whether or not people have a liberal ideology... and they tested for liberal ideology by asking people to self-identify as liberal, conservative, etc.
This doesn't match ANY political party. But it's reflected in all of them.
In particular this particular theory held that if you have this genetic variation, then you are more willing to sympathize with the viewpoints of friends that you have during adolescence. To presume that this will make one "Liberal" is presuming something about the range of views of your friends.
...actually, no. Conservatism is, by definition, resistance to change (wanting to maintain the status quo or go back to a previous status quo).
I have not finished reading the actual paper, BUT... their hypothesis seems to be that this allele ultimately affects both the desire and ability to make new and more diverse friends, and that the "combination of the desire for new experience and many different pathways to these experience...has an impact on political ideology." (Fowler et al. 8)
This makes a lot of sense in light of previous research regarding conservatism. It doesn't explain ALL conservatives or ALL liberals, but it should certainly be seen as one of many factors. Fear of change is another, very direct, factor, so on the surface you would absolutely expect that those who seek novelty are more likely to be liberal (which seeks change) than conservative (which avoids change).
Insofar as I do have a nice new chair now (my first), may I observe that those who DO have $700 Aeron chairs do so because they are creating wealth, not just absorbing material. (Those unclear on rules of logic are reminded that the last sentence does not mean those who do not have an expensive chair are not creating wealth.)...The expensive chair sat upon is a consequence of productivity, not a primary means thereto.
More conservative, holier-than-thou drivel. "I have the creature comforts because I deserve them because I CREATE wealth!" Bullocks. While this is true in some cases, it is not the end-all, be-all explanation. Comfort in a free/semi-free market economy comes from having adequate means to acquire it. This could be by stealing it directly, by stealing cash which is then used to buy creature comforts, by stealing something which is sold or traded for cash which is used to buy creature comforts, by simply inheriting either the creature comforts or the wealth that enables them, or any number of myriad other possibilities I have not imagined. In case you're unclear on the rules of logic, I'm also not implying that YOU don't create wealth, don't deserve creature comforts, or anything else... but I am proving that your argument absolutely fails to establish any causal relationship between having creature comforts and producing wealth. As such, it really doesn't contribute to this discussion.
I understand, though, that what you're really trying to say is: "people who can't afford it don't deserve to have it". But this discussion isn't about whether they deserve anything, it's about the effects of various investments on education outcomes. Let's see if you make a better argument there.
The "to improve education, throw more money at it" crowd fails to realize that by far the biggest factor in education is the student's own willingness to learn. If they don't want to be there, students will squirm just as much in an expensive chair as a cheap one, and get just as little out of the experience.
Yet again you oversimplify to a serious fault. First, I demand data and experiments demonstrating your assertion that students' "willingness to learn" is the biggest obstacle... and it had better be from peer-reviewed sources, not some self-righteous conservablog.
Second, you're assuming (and again, baldly asserting) a simple one-way causative relationship, but you have failed entirely to address intervening and confounding variables (and that's not the only problem with your statement). You don't think willingness is AFFECTED by the money thrown at education? Seriously? You don't think a school with a larger budget can attract better teachers who can affect the motivation of their students? You don't think the quality of facilities has an effect on student motivation?
Since you brought your own anecdote... When I was in high school, one of my most motivated and inspiring teachers was in his first year of teaching. Because the pay was so bad and support staff so minimal, he got discouraged by the 12+ hour workdays and near-poverty wages within the first year and left teaching. His departure, directly due to underfunding, led to a reduction in the average quality of teachers at that school... and discouraged me from ever becoming a teacher myself.
I had great parents and grew up in an average city. My childhood wasn't all that terrible, and I felt like I could have a great career when I grew up. If my mother was a crack whore and my father some John, I probably wouldn't have felt like an education would pay off for me--it would be fairly reasonable to see that my best bet in life would be to become the best thug, pimp, or drug dealer in town. If my school was falling apart, I would not have wanted to go there, and I would not have associated education with success. If my teachers had been paid less, they would not have been as happy in life or as motivated to teach. If my chair had a leg missing I would have had some trouble sitting in it and concentrating in class.
Funding. Matters.
No, I presume that we learn things by trying, and it's better to know than not know. If we make a mistake, the liberals will be the first to suggest change, while the conservatives will want things to stay the same.
Hey, nobody is more open to experimentation than the conservatives. How else do you explain all the "temporary homosexuals" in the religious right?
And they're not afraid to conduct experiments on other people, either. They just want all experiments to be conducted on dark-skinned people.*
*I kid, somewhat. Clearly not all conservatives are racists, but most racists are conservative, and racism has long been a driving force in American conservative movements... and this statement ties in nicely with this research. The same independent variables studied here are commonly believed to be associated with racism.
To play devil's advocate here, if that's the case...what's their motivation? They've already been granted lifetime appointments, why would they need to give in to the demands/wishes of special interests or politicians?
Playing devil's advocate as well... it could be that, for them, ideology trumps pragmatism. That is, they don't really give a damn about the effects of the ruling, they simply feel that corporations should have more rights and be treated more like people.
If anything, the pragmatic view related to this should go against their decision. Judicial elections (at the lower levels) are already becoming dangerously corrupt and corporate/interest group-sponsored. Many of the sitting Justices have already made comments about this. I didn't read the whole ruling, but I don't recall this issue being mentioned at all.
ink that the difference is that the constitution also makes no mention of organizations or corporations has have ANY rights.
That's completely irrelevant. Read the plain text of the 1st amendment: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
What part of "shall make no law" is so hard to understand?
THAT (your absurd extension and oversimplification of this) is completely irrelevant. Are you also saying that security clearances are unconstitutional because people can be imprisoned for revealing information (just speech, right)? What about inciting rebellion? How about the old fire in a crowded theater shtick?
Clearly there are limits on all rights, and those limits start right about the point where other rights begin in addition to what is required to maintain the state.
Do you think that Russia or another foreign government should be able to directly fund political ads in America? What about corporations majority-controlled by foreigners? What about corporations run by foreign states? Primarily foreign corporations? Organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce that accept substantial sums from these corporations?
In this case, I think most people can agree that the impact of Citizens United has been to allow corporations to directly influence the outcome of elections. Additionally, there's good reason to believe that foreign money has become mixed in with this. I highly doubt this was the intent of the founding fathers. Even if it was, I think most of us agree that this is not the best way to ensure real democracy in America.