ParanoiA

I don't understand. How does that not help the economy?

Why don't we just blow money on every pet project that every congressman and senator wants? All of them will employ someone and all we have to do is wait for someone to complain and then say "how does that not help the economy"? Seems to have worked brilliantly so far.

Isn't agnosticism the default position of science? How is that strange?

Show me where I referenced or talked about Morse v Frederick. It's absolutely irrelevant which is exactly why I never talked about it. Pangloss brought it up on page one, and several others took it up with him. I'm not one, nor ever was. Had you actually bothered to read this thread you'd realize how embarrassed you ought to be at the moment. Even the people that brought it up are done with it, having also concluded it's irrelevant and for the same reason you mentioned. You're so busted for not reading...apparently anything. You're a day late and a dollar short and you're trying to pretend as if there's something earth shattering about the obvious you keep bringing up - stuff they already covered. I suggest you catch up with us and start reading the thread before you accuse others of the same. Your post followed mine so I figured it was a 50% chance it was addressed to me. You didn't quote anyone, which we now know is because you didn't read the thread in order to quote anyone in the first place. I can only guess you dreamed you read it.

Who are you directing this to? I haven't even referenced this case. I think Pangloss and others went through that on page one. And yeah, the fact it was a school event was the contention. Well done.

That's the more philanthropic corporate model I'd call it, and should really be rewarded with business so such a thing might spread.

Yeah, I think so.

I'm aware of that, but I was waiting for him to step in it first and admit it was irrational to circumvent that problem. Thanks Dr. The obvious follow up is substantiation. Again, I get why folks suspect things, but I do not understand how you cross the line to belief. But I don't want to bust the rules here, and I'm afriad I'm walking a thin line here. Actually, I thought he was making the argument that it wasn't likely that anyone on here would actually be a follower of Thor just due to the odds, since it isn't popular by a long shot. Not an appeal to majority to legitimize the belief, but an appeal to minority to explain the lack of honest "Yes" votes.

I can't believe these idiots are actually arresting people related to the Phelps bong picture. 8 people arrested, 1 of them the supposed dealer. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,490612,00.html What I'd like to know is how they got caught? Is eye witness testimony really submissible? Wouldn't the witnesses have to know it's pot in order to say they saw someone smoke it? There are legal herbs sold online that emulate the look and taste of "bud" and all that. I guess it's always possible the potheads are too stoned to think about how to defend themselves, but I would emphatically fight this. Ridiculous.

What a sick way to test your authority.

Then why do you believe them? Why not believe that paper clips created the universe? Also, how are we to distinguish between the beliefs you rationally concluded, like belief in gravity, and the ones you irrationally concluded?

How many jobs is that going to create that would kickstart the slugish economy bascule? Hundreds of thousands of suddenly working americans? I don't think so. Like I said, all of this is "stimulative" if you're not measuring the length of time taken to get it going. But a stimulus bill is about priming the pump, and medical databases don't do that. The hospital my father works for rolled out this project and it didn't require hiring anyone new, by the way, as he was picked to be part of that team. Of course, that's Columbia and they are profit based. I suppose you could throw efficiency out the window and hire more people than you need. But that would be yet another artificially created bubble that would burst later on - particularly when the database creation is done. If they want to talk about long term investment then they should stop calling it a stimulus bill, or maybe rename it as a long term stimulus bill. Doesn't really matter, I'm never going to support additional spending, no matter how much they use fear. Obama certainly took notes from the Bush administration on that one. Fear the terrorists, fear the economy, only the government can save us, yeah right. Padren had it right when he made the argument that democrats are rolling out the same double standard - suddenly they're on board with deficit spending. It just had to be their kind of fear. Edit: War employs people too. Why didn't that kickstart anything? It's not just about jobs is it?

Perhaps I should have distinguished operating costs from proposed spending. We don't usually get a presidential address advocating we start buying paper from Dunder Mifflin. I don't know that there is anything that is non-stimulus in some arguable way in that package - the question is what is not a primer for the metaphorical pump. The electronic medical data base investment is one. That's not going to kickstart the economy. Wise investment? Ideological differences notwithstanding, sure. I could give you a line by line, but it's pretty much going to be the whole spending section of the bill and much of the tax cuts. I like tax cuts, but these don't seem very stimulative. Capital gains would be a better place to cut, but I didn't see any reference to that. The infrastructure spending might be a good one, though. Some of the tax credits are good too, like the ones promoting home purchasing and updating. That would seem to be a crucial one, to get the real estate market going. I guess if you want a more thorough answer than that, I'll have to come back later and do it. But I have a feeling you're looking for what republicans are calling pork, and I'm not sure what particulars they're complaining about.

Oh, that's easy. Long term super smart investment is not the point of a stimulus bill - that's the point of a typical budget. That's the contention in all of this. The implied intent of any legislated spending is some kind of wise investment for the future, likely creating jobs and such. I don't think the intent is ever for bad investment that will retard the country, and shrink the economy. So that kind of reasoning misses the point in the stimulus qualifier of the bill. Pushing through non-stimulus spending while USING the "stimulus crisis" is putting one over the tax payer. And that's what making waves. Incidentally, this is also why some of us are against the notion of a stimulus bill. We would oppose things in a stimulus, while supporting them in the annual spending budget.

You extended your hand while keeping your ears plugged. What swansont just shared with you and how you responded is EXACTLY what he predicted. It's difficult for scientists to exercise patience in a highly emotive forum, since science is clinical and emotion undermines the mission. I see your forum and I see a LOT of work to be done right out of the gate, before we even start on specific topics. Most people don't understand the nature of science - they think they do, but they don't. I'm one such person. When I first came to this forum I didn't realize how much of a "process" science is. I never separated science from a scientist and the media. My ideas on what a theory was, facts, evidence - all of those are charged terms that carry huge consequences in how you interpret the study. This is why Rush can successfully demonize global warming because he'll criticize science for what the media is reporting. He'll criticize science for what some scientist's personal views might be. He'll criticize science based on elementary school logic like snowfall in October in Oklahoma. So when a scientist, like Swansont, visits your forum, I'm sure he just sees a mountain of a wall to overcome just to clear up those fundamental issues - before we even start with particular subjects, like global warming. It's daunting, and likely not going to be appreciated. This comes from experience, not speculation.

Yeah, see, you're making my point for me about "managed" being such a broad title. And that's why I was asking. Usually, when I'm talking about "managed", I'm referring to Federal Reserve manipulations. I appreciate safety regulation, but I do not appreciate other kinds of central management.

Heh, the Sopranos used fishing trips, Cheney uses bird hunting. I knew the government was really just the alpha criminal organization in America.

I made the mistake of allowing Radiohead's announced appearance draw me in. Actually, I would do it all over again, it was awesome watching them perform '15 Steps' with USC's marching band. Problem being that if no one is familiar with that song, it likely sounded disjointed and certainly not "catchy". I can't remember the last time I watched the Grammys previous to this last one. Hopefully they won't be able to trick me into watching it again...

Absolutely. Again, if they're going to assume that kind of role then stop asking me for lunch money, school supplies and etc. Where's the half the grocery money? Where are they when I need to go out on a Saturday night and need someone to watch the kids? Must be nice to cherry pick what parental authority you're going to trump me on. When do I get to trump their teaching authority? Oh yeah, I don't get to. I just get to stand in line at the next parent-teacher conference and complain. How nice. The more I keep hearing about these stories and blatant expansion of state authority, the more I'm dissappointed we didn't listen to Jefferson and rock this joint every couple of decades.

It's a ridiculous metaphor because it doesn't compare a natural dam to a man-made one. We're talking about two different economic systems that both "hold water", only one method could be said to hold water better and more consistent.

That's a good way to put it too. This whole war on terror and the pretense of an Iraq connection has been used to excuse their total shift in conservative fiscal philosophy. I would only buy it if the threat matched the rhetoric. It never did. I'm fairly convinced it's more about prioritizing PNAC over any aversion to deficit spending.

Yes, but I'm not sure that pure capitalism with the exception of safety regulation would be considered "mixed" or not. "Managed" is a long jump from laissez faire that implies far more than mere safety regulation.

Ok, another ventilation post to make myself feel better about not fitting in the human race. There's really no reason to read this post. As much as I argue for free market capitalism, it has always been a bittersweet dilemma as capitalists have ruined the arts in America. Watching the grammys last night, I've never seen a room full of more pretentious children in my life. From what I could tell there were but a handfull of adults there to look after them. The funniest are always the rappers. Oversized hats and glasses, chunks of gold dangling from a chain, preference for gold teeth over natural ones, and incessant rambling on and on about how bad ass they are - defined, of course, by how proficient they are at subjugating other humans. And they've been doing this from day one, decades ago. This may well be the strongest evidence against the theory of evolution. These guys look like clowns. The only thing missing is the proverbial clown horn. I kept expecting them to jump in the crowd and entertain the kiddos with circus antics. The only thing funnier is that they take themselves seriously. Priceless. Maybe a psychologist can confirm my belief that people emanate what they aren't. It's been my experience that the more someone tries to convince you of an attribute, the more likely it's a lie. The biggest thief I ever met was the guy who kept reminding me "Oh, I'm good people man. You can trust me." I can only imagine how insecure these idiots must really be. And don't blame it on my age, because I resisted this stupidity when I was a teenager growing up in the 80's as well. The glam rock scene hijacked and perverted metal like terrorists have done to Islam. I never cared for men that were prettier than my girlfriends. Whipping their hair back as some unseen fan we never see blows their hair just right as they sing into the camera doing their impression of a playboy bunny photo shoot. I almost masterbated to White Lion on a late night of headbanger's ball, for crying out loud, and I have never felt gay. (Altogether now: Not that there's anything wrong with that...) Don't get me wrong, I do like a good show and costume laiden weirdos can be hypnotic to watch - when it's original, artistic in some way. I've always enjoyed watching Maynard from Tool, as he seems to get this. There's no telling what kind of weird shit he might do since it's not a knock off repeat that half the crowd is sporting as well. It's not a cheap pretense to feed the heliocentric alpha ego of the performer - it's an interesting visual effect that compliments the music. In other words, it's about the audience, not the self. But for some reason, we're handing over capital to watch them treat their flimsy egos. Why do we reward such selfish pretension? Why do we let them sell us a blatantly prolific false image based on stuff they bought at Wal-mart? I know the answer to this, I think, I just like asking anyway. Ventilation complete. I feel better now. Radiohead was great, by the way. P.S. I forgot to bitch about Miley and Taylor Swift. Apparently the musicians that likely studied their instruments longer than either of them have been alive weren't even important enough to share the stage with them. Singing is definitely more impressive than mastering an instrument. It's not like just about everybody can sing or anything...

Sure that's probably more likely, actually, but I have no reason to believe a managed economy would achieve that better than an economic system that respects potential loss. There doesn't have to be losers, just like we don't have to die young, but the pressure of that potential pushes us to evolve smarter. I believe managing an economy keeps the individual from evolving toward a more proficient performance as thoroughly as a systemic balanced economy does. One protects them from their bad decisions, low pressure to repeat mistakes, while the other leaves the responsibility at their doorstep, where it began. Remember, I'm not advocating laissez faire capitalism, rather I'm taking issue with the notion it doesn't teach anything or move forward. The kind of economy you and others prefer is not compatible with my priority toward personal freedom, and likewise laissez faire dependence on market forces tends to act like tombstone legislation in that damage has to be done before it gets checked. That's cool when we're talking about low quality pots and pans, but not so much for bacterial infected peanut factories. My question is, do you consider government regulation for safety and whatnot within an otherwise laissez faire economy as "mixed"?

I love this... "It's a difference of opinion". Oh, and "I don't know, I'm not a mathematician". Sad part is, you could do this with half the people I work with, all of which have some minimum of college education.