bascule

I know her mainly from her book "A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines," but hey, she's a physicist, and is now publishing a podcast on cosmology called "Reports from the Cosmos": http://www.jannalevin.com/podcasts.html

Some context on the latest government bailout: Bear Stearns was in danger of bankruptcy. They turned to rivals JP Morgan and the federal government to bail them out: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23630319/ JP Morgan has agreed to buy them for approximately $2 billion. The federal goverment will "fund up to $30 billion of Bear Stearns' less liquid assets."

First, Glenn Beck: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/14/beckfloridamichigan/index.html "People who bought houses they couldn't afford with loans they didn't understand want their lenders to change the terms." Next the BBC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBIJH6--vsM First, let assume Glenn Beck wasn't directing his comments at everyone affected by this situation but just at the people who were truly ignorant of the terms of their loans. The BBC program highlights people who were unable to meet their mortgage payments resulting from outside circumstances like illness. However, I'm a little bit annoyed by placing the onus of this problem squarely on the mortgagors. To add to Glenn Beck's little list, how about: "Banks who financed mortgages with predatory terms they knew their leasees couldn't afford want the federal government to bail them out." The big problem: that's been the main solution until now. The government is buying up worthless loans by printing money. As as much as I advocate a fiat currency system, this is clearly an abuse of one. Furthermore, it's not a solution. Foreclosures destroy the value of the loan and transfer it into a liability for the bank. Wouldn't changing the terms of the loans to something sustainable make sense here? Why is it okay for the federal government to bail out the banks but not the borrowers?

Sure! Just like Ericsson isn't a telcom, and Cisco isn't a networking company... What infrastructure exactly was it that they were rebuilding?

And apparently you're missing the irony of me being rude in a thread where you've singled me out and accused me of political correctness. You think political correctness is bad, but dislike rudeness... which I guess further proves that you have no idea what political correctness actually means. Pangloss, I hate political correctness. I call African-American people "blacks". I call Jewish people "Jews". This may very well be rude to some people (particularly practitioners of political correctness). I don't care. I'm not going to dress up my language to be inoffensive. If you want me to dress up my language so as not to be offensive, you're being politically correct. If you think political correctness is bad that makes you a f*cking hypocrite.

Okay, so now you're mad at me for being politically incorrect? Wow, I feel like Bill Maher. So who's being politically correct here? It still looks like... you. I'm sorry, have I offended you? Maybe I should be more politically correct in the future.

What bullshit are you on about now? (that un-PC enough for you?) Let's try: No. You're using it here to mean "expressing ideas the majority of the community agrees with", I guess with the implication that saying things they disagree with would be offensive and therefore politically incorrect. However, I'm not expressing these ideas for the sole purpose of being inoffensive to the SFN community. That's the last thing on my mind... seriously. I obviously have no trouble offending you. So how the hell am I being politically correct? That seems to be what you think is going on, that this is some sort of big jerk circle, and we just say these things to make everyone else happy. Sorry, that's not what's going on. What are you talking about? There's ongoing threads in which people have challenged all sorts of aspects of global warming, presenting evidence. Other people present counterevidence. They don't get "run out of town on a rail". Look at SkepticLance. Pangloss, what is this all about? It seems like you're whining because you're opinions make you something of a pariah around here, and you really don't like that. It seems as if you want people around here to stop saying things which are directly offensive to you and your minority opinions. If that's really the case, what you're doing is asking us to be politically correct.

In what way am I minimizing offense to SFN membership? How is SFN membership even an "identity group"? Where? I'm not seeing it. Can you post a link to an authoritative source? An encyclopedia? A dictionary? And, for that matter, can you state your personal definition of what "political correctness" means?

So really quick, what identity group is it that I'm seeking to minimize offense to? Unless you're operating under some definition of "political correctness" of which I'm not aware, your usage of the phrase represents a diction error. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride Halliburton is the primary employer in my hometown. Why are they there? To extract oil from the massive amounts of shale present in the valley and surrounding canyons my hometown is located in. http://www.halliburton.com/ "Halliburton offers a broad array of oilfield technologies and services to upstream oil and gas customers worldwide." "Since 1919, Halliburton has continued to earn the trust of our customers around the world by leading the [oil] well-site services industry through the delivery of innovative technology, reservoir-specific expertise and outstanding service quality. No matter how challenging their technology or service issues may be, our customers know that we will find a way to fulfill on our promise: The [Oil] Reservoir — Delivered." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliburton "Halliburton major business segment is the Energy Services Group (ESG). ESG provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production."

I think we did that when we illegally invaded Iraq in the first place. Continuing to ignore the fact that America and Iraq aren't the only players involved has cost America dearly, but given Bush's position on the matter, it's no wonder the UN and the rest of the world haven't reached out to us and attempted an international resolution to the situation. Two things there: first, the consequences of remaining are staggering, both in human and economic cost. Second: I think it's fair to argue that our presence is instigating violence (although on the flip side it is also abating it). Exactly where the balance lies is a matter of debate, but I don't believe the presence of large numbers of US forces are best for Iraq. There are more options available than Dubya's false dichotomy of "stay the course" or "cut and run," and I think we should be exploring all of these and finding an option which reduces the number of American lives lost and dollars spent in Iraq without leaving a power vacuum that plunges the country into total chaos. That said, large presence of US forces in Iraq is terrible for America.

Yes, however you've also gone on to advocate the approach in general without normalizing successes across attempts. Some might call that specious reasoning. By the way, I have a rock that keeps tigers away...

I guess I'm crazy and want what's best for America

A transfer of control to UN forces who will respond to the Iraqi government's requests to leave would be a step forward...

And... surprise surprise, in a mostly party line vote, Republicans upheld Bush's veto: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1163630920080312

I get an eerie sense of deja vu from the "stay the course" vibes now re-eminating from the other side, so similar to the ones we heard on the run-up to the 2004 election, shortly before violence exploded in Iraq

Your sarcasm detector is malfunctioning

Nope! On a completely unrelated matter have a look at the value of Halliburton stock

Call that spin if you want, but it's certainly not political correctness by any definition I am aware of. "Waterboarding" is spin too, and I'm glad to see the mainstream media picking up on a more apt description: simulated drowning.

As an outside observer to the process of atmospheric research, I can certainly assure you that "boundary conditions" of all types were heavily considered in the models I was working with, insomuch as a lowly system administrator heard the word on a day-to-day basis. Present knowledge of climate change isn't derived from just a "set of differential equations." Those equations are among innumerable ones fitting a variety of different physical systems which figure into a general circulation model. The cumulative model is composed of a set of mini-models, all of which work in conjunction and feed data back and forth between each other, and in conjunction produce a realistic reconstruction of the historical record. An error in any part of the system would have to be compensated for by errors in other parts of the system which are able to balance out and produce something which appears historically accurate. Unless climate scientists have chanced upon such a configuration, and overlooked gross errors in multiple problem domains, they're onto something. No? They've continually underpredicted the actual warming... Perhaps no species were digging carbon compounds out of the ground and burning them... At what other time in history were carbon sinks being actively emptied into the atmosphere by physical processes at the rate they are presently? Bottom line: I think this article sucks. WTF?

It's a very difficult question. My gut inclination is that "thinking" as we know it is an activity deeply rooted in natural language. However, on the flip side I think any creature with neocortical-like structures in their brain (mammals, birds, possibly certain invertebrates like cuttlefish) is to a certain degree capable of what we consider consciousness. In that respect, yes, they think.

Coal, the mainstay of the US power grid, produces an abominable amount of carbon dioxide, which has known atmospheric detriments. Because of accumulated carbon emissions, of which coalfire powerplants make up a large fraction, half a billion people will lose access to safe drinking water in the next 15 years, on top of the 1.1 billion worldwide who already lack access. Coalfire power plants have catastrophic environmental consequences. And while I certainly won't argue that people haven't lost their lives to nuclear disaster, the designs involved are largely obsolete (particularly the positive void coefficient design employed in Chernobyl. No such reactors remain in use) and the chance of such disasters reoccurring is slim to nil. Nuclear waste is an issue, more with transportation rather than storage, but again, it's a low risk endeavour compared to the known risks of wide-scale carbon production. While there's hope for a greener future for coalfire plants (such as Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle) I think nuclear plants are our best option for green power in the near future.

I'm somewhat annoyed you haven't responded. I think the "politically correct" meme in question is that torture is inexcusable under any circumstances. Under that sort of "politically correct" scrutiny, the neocons have responded and the answer is that torture is necessary to keep the country safe: Pour water up someone's nose to prevent 9/11? Sounds good to me! I'm not really an absolutist, even when I speak in those terms. When I say torture is inexcusable under any circumstances, I'm lying. There are certainly circumstances under which torture can be condoned! As an example, let's say Mr. Evel Diablo has placed a bomb at the center of the earth which unless it can be stopped will blow up the entire world and kill everyone and everything (except for bacteria, those guys are hardier than us mammals), and only he knows the secret code that will defuse it. We have only hours to live... will I happily sign off on having the world's top interrogators do whatever it takes to get the secret code out of him? Sure! If we don't do whatever it takes to get the information out of the guy... we lose everything... our lives, civilization, the Earth, humanity... and if we do, well we might lose everything, but at least there's a chance. Those feel like awfully similar stakes as to what the neocons in the White House and their cackling cohorts and network of spinmeisters would have us believe about their reasoning behind torture. (lulz not really that's just a strawman but it's a rhetorical one so just keep reading) I'm deeply worried about the US economy and the Iraq War's effect upon it. As for terrorists? I couldn't care less. I'm sorry if some people on the "torture is wrong" side started making excuses about the efficacy of torture in procuring information, but that's playing right into the neocon line. Torture is wrong. It doesn't matter if it procures information. It doesn't matter if it stops terrorists. If we torture, we're the terrorists.

Just curious, what identity group is that meme targeting (torture victims?) and how specifically does it relate to their identity, and if it isn't targeting a specific identity group, what definition of political correctness are you using? I think this one can be attributed to a simple diction error. I, for one, eschew political correctness, but apparently I don't by the definition Pangloss is using.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_torture Certainly not entirely unexpected, but I really dislike living under leadership whose bottom line seems to be the argument that torture (in addition to stripping us of our civil liberties like spying on us and imprisoning people indefinitely without trial) keeps us safe. How about we sacrifice some of that alleged safety for basic human rights and civil liberties?

Do Not Feed The Trolls