bascule

Modern dialectic and rhetoric seems to involve coming up with catch phrases/talking points and getting enough of the members of your party to repeat them often enough that people start believing they're true. You don't need to be an orator, you just have to remember sound bytes like "stay the course" or "cut and run" or "flip flopper"

Indeed, and that's where I'm at. Thanks for the additional background... particularly the quotes from Clarence Thomas.

So an open thread here. Apparently there are some people who think Democrats and Republicans are tit-for-tat when it comes to corruption, depravity, contrarianism, etc. Others may feel that one party is generally better than the other. What do you think? (I will withhold my position, which you can probably guess, until some discussion has ensued)

If you don't think the Republicans have profound systemic problems with their party which aren't present in the Democrats, you aren't paying attention. This is excusable considering you aren't an American, and thus any attention you pay to our system comes from the perspective of an outsider. Platitudes like "partisanship is destroying you" and "both sides are equally bad" are myopic and counterproductive to the debate. They do not reflect the reality of the situation. I find this particularly ironic as you thoroughly recognize how backwards America is on healthcare, yet the Republicans have become little more than contrarian corporate shills hell bent on doing everything in their power to prevent any sort of attempt to bring our healthcare system out of the dark ages. Yes, some Democrats are doing this too. One of them is the representative of my district. However, every single Republican senator with the one possible and still very tenuous exception of Olympia Snowe has vowed to vote against this legislation. The Democrats are doing their best. The Republicans are doing everything in their power to oppose anything the Democrats want to do. If you wish to respond please come back at me with something other than hollow platitudes. Perhaps you could do a bit more research into our two respective major parties. Thanks.

But wouldn't this only be applicable to cases where the "controlled substances" were crossing state lines?

The closest I've seen to someone calling out one of the major scientific organizations doing the relevant analysis is when Steve McIntyre located erroneous USHCN data in the NASA GISS analysis. GISS's response was to correct their mistakes and update their analysis with the corrected data along with a post-mortem of what the problem was, how they corrected it, and what changed in the new analysis (see the Data Error section). While yes, it's bad the data used by NASA GISS for their GISTEMP assessment was in error, GISS's response was very much in line with how a scientific organization should behave when confronted with an error in their analysis. If we weren't seeing this sort of thing, then yes, we should be doubtful of the science.

To basically reiterate iNow, it wouldn't look terribly distinct from anything else corrupting the scientific process. Corruption in science can take any number of forms: unreproducible data, falsified data, failure to make data available, failure to publish papers even though they pass the peer review process, "fast-track" peer review that overlooks errors in either the data or the conclusion, etc. I'm sure you can find case instances of these sorts of things all over the place as well. So what would make it a "real" problem as opposed to the failings of individual scientists? If we saw systemic cases of these things happening in some of the larger groups whose analysis underlies the current consensus, like the IPCC, NOAA, or NASA GISS.

I have no doubts that there are many scientists within the climate science community who have agendas. Generally, when you do have a general consensus in a scientific community, such as the one we see in the climate science community, it becomes much more difficult for outsiders of that community to present dissenting opinions. All that said, the overwhelming majority of the anti-GW movement reeks of paranoid conspiracy theorists. An easy challenge to anyone who tries to draw too many conclusions from this: does this happen in other scientific communities? In my mind (having read books like The Trouble with Physics) the answer is an overwhelming yes. Does this mean there's a conspiracy to convince the world that global mean surface temperatures are generally on the rise when really they're not. No. I was traveling this weekend and caught a bit of Fox News. They were talking about how Obama didn't choose to go to Copenhagen for the climate conference there. They went so far as to say (I believe this is a direct quote) "proponents of global warming are in disarray" because Obama wasn't attending the conference. Disarray? They're holding a conference. That's what I call a fairly organized event. Overall, I see this entire affair as a giant ad hominem. They can't attack the science, so they attack the scientists. OMG they're biased, therefore... they're wrong? No.

This is cool but I'm somewhat dubious about their claims. You can't just equate neocortical columns between different mammal species as if they're identical.

I would characterize that as an unfair generalization. It's not like the Republicans care more. In general, I would contend they care far less.

Poll needs option: tl;dr

For what it's worth JohnB, I blame the Democratic "Blue Dogs" (including my representative Jared Polis, to whom I have written a nasty letter) just as much as the Republicans. The insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies why we won't see a bill for true universal healthcare in America any time soon, and why the healthcare bill we're getting is such a bloated morass.

More or less. To be more specific I'm talking about superposition. When unobserved fundamental particles behave differently than when we observe them (and thus collapse their waveform) Can be heard? By who? What if your dog can hear it but you cannot? What if you can hear it, but your grandma cannot? This definition is rather open-ended, and allows for potential perception by any entity capable of hearing. In that regard, longitudinal waves traveling through a medium which would elicit the qualia of sound in some potential perceiver, regardless of whether perceived or unperceived, are still a sound.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?_r=1 This is perhaps the single most blatant case of lobbyists affecting the healthcare debate. These lawmakers were reading statements drafted for them by lobbyists almost verbatim. So for those of you outside the US wondering why we can't change our system, this is a huge reason why.

I think you'll find running adults are perfectly acceptable, especially when catching mass transit. It's just most of the time things aren't so time-sensitive that we need to run.

I'd argue this has far more to do with static versus dynamic type systems than it does with JIT vs AOT compilation. .NET is JIT compiled, however there are rather large C# programs. C#, however, has a static type system. That said, the core telco application application Erlang was originally created to write is millions of lines long. Erlang is a dynamic language.

Here's Jon Stewart's follow-up to the whole Hannity footage debacle: http://dauntingideas.com/content/jon-stewart-responds-sean-hannitys-apology-playing-false-video I liked Jon Stewart's suggestion that Fox's motto ought to be "We alter reality. You are sold a preconceived narrative." Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedIn the same episode, they reported on the departure of Lou Dobbs from CNN: I wonder if he's going over to Fox (much like Glenn Beck did)

Gabriel's horn has finite volume but infinite surface area Fractals have a finite area but an infinite perimeter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/politics/14immig.html?_r=2 I have never heard of this particular scheme before, but it does make sense. I like it. How about you? Has anyone else ever proposed this before?

The Supreme Court ruled tax stamps were unconstitutional in Leary v US. Marijuana was rendered illegal due to state laws until this case, which made marijuana legal in 1968. It was rendered illegal again by the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.

I think it's notable how early life developed on earth. It seems, at least in our universe, given appropriate conditions (i.e. temperatures that maintain liquid water and a magnetic field which protects delicate life molecules from destructive radiation) life forms rather quickly.

Well, you're looking at national-level statistics, like their GDP. What percentage of the Chinese population is considered middle-class versus the percentage of first-world countries which are considered middle class? China is a third world country. The overwhelming majority of their population is impoverished. Their GDP is still less than Japan, and Japan's middle class is still larger than China's, and that's as a whole, not as a percentage of their population. As a percentage of their population, China's middle class is a drop in the bucket compared to any first-world country. China still remains the diametrical opposite of America as far as its domestic economy versus its exports go. America consumes far more than it produces, because its exports are weak and its domestic economy is extremely strong. China produces far more than it consumes, because its exports are strong and its domestic economy is extremely weak. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged That's the real question. Much like UAE/Dubai, China recognizes their dependence on exports. This city is obviously a recognition of that and an attempt to produce a legitimate domestic economy from money acquired through exports. That said, thus far the attempt is a failure. The only money the city has is based on speculation. This city obviously has NO economy! Dubai is certainly a much better attempt than this Ordos city in China, but now that the bottom has dropped out of the oil market, Dubai is suffering. You could never say the same thing about the bottom dropping out of any American metropolis because of fluctuations in the value of some commodity. New York City has a robust economy despite the value of oil. New York City has a true domestic economy.

That does not answer the question of why the government doesn't solely regulate the sale of substances across state lines, but instead wants to regulate substances down to the level of individuals producing substances for their own consumption. I cannot grow a marijuana plant in my own house for my own personal consumption. It would never leave my house. What in the Constitution grants the federal government the right to regulate that? In what way can something I do in the privacy of my own home ever possibly be construed under the auspices of inter-state commerce? Not only is there no inter-state (much less inter-house) distribution involved, there is no commerce involved. How the hell is that not a states rights issue? And note to pseudolibertarian teabaggers: if you do not stand behind the right of a person to do something within the comforts of their own home which does not have a direct effect on any other individuals, you are not a libertarian. You are a poseur. In regard to policing substances under the auspices of interstate commerce: it could be a crime when crossing borders. That's the entire point of the interstate commerce provisions. But if it never leaves the domicile of a single individual, who produces something solely for their own use? HOW THE HELL DO YOU CONSTRUE IT AS INTERSTATE COMMERCE? It's not interstate. It's not commerce. PERIOD. As far as I'm concerned this is little more than an unconstitutional power grab by the federal government.

Right now there's a huge overlap between recreational and medicinal use, because the federal government has classified marijuana as having no acceptable medical use. Many states recognize this classification as myopic, and have approved marijuana for medical use. However, because the federal government still maintains marijuana doesn't have an acceptable medical use, it isn't possible for pharmaceutical companies to produce marijuana in a form that is acceptable under the Pure Food and Drug Act. Marijuana remains a huge legal gray area, and this only works to the benefit of suppliers who wish to sell to recreational users under the guise of medicinal marijuana. If the federal government would simply admit that marijuana has legitimate medical uses, it could be prepared by pharmaceutical corporations in a way that would pass the scrutiny of the Pure Food and Drug Act. Its potency could be measured and appropriate dosages could be dispensed to legitimate medicinal users. Worse, opponents of medical marijuana (such as Bill O'Reilly) trot out the gray market for medical marijuana created by the fact the DEA and FDA refuse to acknowledge that marijuana has legitimate medical as a reason it should be further opposed: rFv1gpWh2yY This is a problem of the FDA and DEA's own creation. The only reason why medical marijuana presently cannot comply with the Pure Food and Drug Act is specifically because the FDA and DEA claim that there are no legitimate medical uses for medical marijuana, thus there cannot be a legitimate market for medical marijuana, and the market is relegated to the state-approved but federally-unapproved medical dispensary market which does not comply with the Pure Food and Drug Act. If the federal government were to simply step in and approve a legitimate distribution infrastructure for marijuana, this gray market would go away overnight, and abuse of the medical marijuana system for recreational use would become far more difficult. The problem would simply go away if the DEA and FDA would admit that marijuana has legitimate medical uses, and set appropriate guidelines for marketing marijuana as a legitimate medical product. This would also eliminate the present problem of how to regulate the gray market for medical marijuana at the state level. Here in Colorado medical marijuana dispensaries are springing up left and right thanks to the state law and the state government is unsure how to regulate them. All it takes is for the DEA and FDA to admit they are wrong and recognize that marijuana has legitimate medical uses. As soon as they do that the gray market for medical marijuana would disappear, and marijuana could be dispensed as a legitimate medical drug by pharmaceutical companies, appropriately dosed, labeled, and dispensed by pharmaceutical guidelines exactly like any other drug. Unfortunately, these agencies simply don't want to admit they're wrong, despite overwhelming scientific evidence. At play is, of course, the pharmaceutical lobby: there are inferior drugs in competition with marijuana for the relevant markets. Zofran is prescribed to chemotherapy patients for nausea relief, but it is extremely expensive compared to marijuana and does not do nearly as good of a job. Vaporized marijuana is extremely effective at combating nausea produced as a side effect of chemotherapy, and is available at a cost an order of magnitude less than Zofran. By vaporizing the marijuana, most of the ill health effects are eliminated. The product is not smoked, but rather ingested through the lungs as a vapor, as compared to Zofran, which patients must swallow and ingest through their stomach despite extreme nausea. Clearly in the case where the symptom is extreme nausea ingestion through a vector other than the stomach is optimal. Bottom line, Zofran's manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, does not want to see medical marijuana legitimized at a national level, because it would cut into their profit margins because it's a better solution. Never mind the benefit to cancer patients... profit is more important than the benefit to society. This whole debacle only reiterates how free markets are naturally opposed to optimal healthcare strategies. Why legalize a "weed" which helps cancer patients when less effective synthetic drugs are available at 10x the price?

Did you watch the video? I think this city is a rather interesting statement on the "GDP is growing" idea. This is an entire city built with government money, which goes towards their GDP. The growth this city has added to China's GDP is equivalent to saying the New Deal created jobs... which it did, but those jobs were all based on government money. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but this city is a microcosm of China itself, which was the underlying tone Al Jazeera seemed to convey in this entire report. Sure, China looks great on paper. But this city has no domestic economy. The government built a city and the creation of this city added to China's GDP. People are buying into it, but it has not resulted in this city having its own economy... all the money is coming from outside. The internal economy of this city is completely dead. I think, in the future, yes, this city could have a huge economy, but what catalyst will kick it off? You can't have a healthy economy sustained by external forces alone. Compare this to the US: we have a negative trade balance with every other country in the entire world, and yet it's sustainable, because America has such a strong domestic economy. China is the polar opposite of America... if Americans stopped buying Chinese goods, China's economy would wither and die. Right now, China has a parasite economy which only sustains itself by feeding off other countries demands for their goods.