Pangloss

There's no objective truth there, just another opinion. As I said before, some earmarks are for good purposes. The problem is that once you've subverted the system for one reason, it enters the realm of spin and departs the realm of fact. Earmarks are ALWAYS a subversion of the system. Note that even the author in your quote didn't suggest that they're about cutting through red tape, they're about getting idiot lawmakers to agree on something they would not normally agree on. Well here's a thought: If the idiot lawmakers can't see past their noses, THROW THEM OUT AND GET NEW ONES. Don't subvert the system just because you can't get what you want, even if what you want makes perfect sense for everyone. The ends don't justify the means. In fact they just make things worse.

I'll go ahead and move it back to Politics, then, but I'm not happy about extremist discussions on the Politics board and I'm absolutely determined not to allow it to degenerate into DU/Freeper territory.

Rumor has it that Sarah Palin will show up on Saturday Night Live this week (Edit: Looks like this will be happening on 10/18 or 10/25). I mention it mainly for the political interest, though it's surely going to be a comedy bit. http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/10/10/palin-on-saturday-night-live-you-betcha/ What do you all think of all these politicians showing up on entertainment shows? I've always thought it was kinda bogus, though the appearances themselves can be amusing.

In my opinion all earmarks ARE bad, even the ones I agree with, and I really don't think you want Obama/Biden to be seen as supporting them -- this should not be a partisan issue, iNow. I understand why it was necessary, but in my opinion adding two or three hundred BILLION dollars of earmarks just to get this bill passed is one of the most egregious abuses of power in the history of this nation. I shudder to think how many bridges to nowhere are going to mysteriously appear over the horizon in the future. And I don't even want to think about the $15,000 bill coming my way at some point in time, plus interest.

Sure, he didn't say Bush took the country to an ideological extreme, he just said "that wasn't what happened in 2004". In other words, he threw out yet another blatantly suggestive, elliptical statement, the meaning of which was clear, and called it a day. And when I challenged him on it he admitted that was what he meant with his response in post #21, with the following rant: So I was correct in my interpretation of his "that wasn't what happened in 2004" comment. When Bascule does this he is essentially saying' date=' "Nudge-nudge, wink-wink, we all know who the progressives are here and I just can't finish that sentence because Pangloss will get angry, so I'll use a code instead and you'll know what I mean. Of course, if a [i']conservative[/i] posts something we disagree with, why, we'll challenge him for evidence and logic. But amongst ourselves, of course, the most obtuse reasoning is perfectly acceptable." Well I don't accept that, and I will continue to challenge him on that behavior. The only reason he said the above is because I challenged him on it. I'd call that progress. But I do appreciate the opportunity to elucidate on my views on this.

I didn't say it was open, I said it was more open than any other country, which flies in the face of the supposition that it isn't open enough. And I said that if you want to make a case that opening it further will help the economy, then you need to show that need, not just complain about the border not being open enough. Where is the evidence that there aren't enough lawn care specialists and house maids? I'm not saying it's not out there, I'm saying I've not heard it. What I'm suggesting is that there is demand for lower-paid workers, not for more workers. I pay the guy who does my lawn $50/month for two visits. If another guy shows up tomorrow offering three visits for the same rate, I'm going to take that deal. If he doesn't, I'm stuck with what I have. These seem to support my point. Can you expand further on that last one you mentioned, in so far as it may address my question above?

Well I can understand that and even agree with the sentiment, but it was an earmark, and it had no more business being in there than Adler Planetarium's funding for a new projector. This gets back to my point from the Religulous thread -- in my opinion the ends do not justify the means here, either. We should not be willing to sacrifice good government even at the great altar of planetary salvation. But I have no objection to the measure itself.

Whatever you say, man.

Bascule, throwing around a bunch of straw men about Bush's ideologies doesn't change the fact that we're still not the extreme right-wing dictatorship that you want people to believe that we've become. And you have some nerve to make that claim and then whine about political polarization in this country, bud. Especially on a science forum. I acknowledge the point, but the death of the SUV and many-months of straight decline in American gas consumption is a far more recent phenomenon, i.e. 2007. None of that had happened yet in 2004, and gas prices were only a vague, undefined, not-immediate factor in the election. And that's intuitively obvious. Bush was re-elected. But he couldn't get re-elected today if he looked like Brad Pitt and sounded like Barrack Obama. QED.

Yes, customs and immigration is more serious these days, but as posted earlier in the thread, we allow in more people each year than any other country on the planet. They already are more welcome than on any other planet on Earth, and more workers is only a good thing if unfilled jobs are actually available. Is there demand that is not being met? I don't know. Do you? Let's see some numbers. All I see at the moment are assumptions.

I answered this in the previous post. Bush was re-elected because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far. And yet we are not a religious dictatorship. Hence Bush getting re-elected in 2004 in spite of all the crazy ranting from the far left. (Not to mention my own evenly-reasoned departure in the center.) Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far. Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far. Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far. You gonna respond to that argument, or just pretend it isn't there?

You're starting to sound like quite the conservative, agentchange, advocating the benefits of low-wage labor! Just kidding, I understand your point. Sure that's true about better labor costing more, but I'm just wondering why it's necessarily wrong to pay more for the cheap labor. If that's so bad then why do we keep raising the minimum wage?

I missed this in the debate somehow. This is really unfortunate to hear. I can understand if we're going to stop using earmarks -- fine, make them put it in clearly marked, purposeful legislation aimed at improving science education instead of an "earmark" slipped into somebody's bill just to get their vote -- I'm cool with that. But to call it an "overhead projector" just for political gain, that is absolutely insulting to me. Those things aren't just a pinnacle of engineering and a landmark of science education -- they are an absolute work of art. I can't even begin to communicate how much they inspired my own interest in science. I can relate one story, though. When I was in high school I had an opportunity of a lifetime for a nerdy kid in the pre-computer era -- the chance to be an unpaid volunteer at Fernbank Planetarium in Atlanta. I actually got to run the Mark V -- my god, I was literally in heaven. Years later the digital planetariums started to replace the old optical ones. They drew a lot of attention because of the ability to change star locations and other cool effects. But the image quality was nowhere NEAR that of the great Zeiss machines. I've no idea what the situation is today; haven't been in a planetarium in years. But that is really unfortunate to hear.

Sure, that's why I'm learning Spanish -- so I can tell the lady how to cut my hair. But how does increasing what is already an extremely large number of immigrants save the economy? Is there a shortage of hairdressers and janitors where you live? Also, I've never quite understood why it's actually desirable for these jobs to generate less income. If there weren't anybody willing to do those jobs for that pay, wouldn't that actually result in a larger amount of money being spent on those jobs? Why is it a bad thing if it costs me $100/month to get lawn care instead of $50/month?

Yup. We threw money at the problem, which turned out to be an insult to both money and the problem.

They don't. They have entry points in each galaxy. You can't go to a specific stargate in a different galaxy, even with a ZPM. Earth (and Lantea) just happen to be galactic entry points (not a coincidence; they designed it that way). Once you're within a galactic gate system you can only address other gates in the same galaxy -- that's all you have addressing symbols for. That's why the intergalactic bridge had a midway station. (This isn't an astronomy question, but I guess it's an interesting thought problem. I'm going to move it over to the General forum, though.)

This is what I love about discussing politics on a science forum. All that logical reasoning and demand for evidence and careful, independent thinking goes right out the window.

You're wrong -- 2004 proves my point. Because gas was still cheap, the economy was still growing, and the ideological programs hadn't gone too far. That's what happens when you build an opinion off an ideological predisposition instead of the facts -- you come to conclusions based on fears of what MAY happen, rather than what's ACTUALLY happened. You hear people say how the country has slid into religious dictatorship so often that you figure it must be true, then go on to draw conclusions based on that erroneous reasoning (like your statement above). Again, this is why I challenge you when you use ellipses instead of argument. Kudos for not doing so here. You're being straight-up now, and the result is a more reasoned, more factual, and more illuminating discussion. So sure, enjoy the victory. Just like your side did in 1992. Just like your enemies did in 2000. How's that working out so far? Good? Great, keep going. Nobody seems to want to change that pattern. Might as well continue. All it's cost you in the last week is $15,000. Surely a small price to pay for a brighter, more progressive future.

I can understand that point of view, I just don't think it works. The theory being that the obstructionists and denialists in both parties have not listened to critics at all. They know they have low approval ratings but they think it's the fault of the OTHER party's obstructionists and denialists, not theirs. So you put one of them in power in the hopes that the opposition party will observe the rising approval ratings and desist in their behavior. The problem with that theory is you've just bolstered all the partisans in the "winning" party. They think they've just been given a mandate, and their ideological agendas are actually desired by the country. But in fact people don't want progressive agendas OR religious theocracies. They'll put up with ideological programs, but at the end of the day if their wallets are lighter instead of heavier, or if too much "progress" in either direction is pushed over them, the leadership party is out the door. I tell all partisans the same thing: Be careful what you wish for. I said it to the liberals in 1992, I said it to the conservatives in 2000, and now I'm saying it to the liberals again in 2008. Gee, anyone sensing a pattern here? That's why I think it's a mistake to play this game, to reward one of these awful entities at the very moment they're at their most criminal in behavior. People are actually going to celebrate after election day. Celebrate! What the heck is wrong with this country?

Okay, but "eliminating gridlock" seems to have suddenly taken a back seat in the above post. I realize that was bascule's point, not yours, but in #8 you seemed to be supporting his assertion that Democrats need to be given the 60 majority because that will eliminate gridlock.

Yeah I agree with that completely. It's the old bullet-points-and-subject-headers approach that I think gets people into the most trouble. Like watching a movie with subtitles on -- it gets boring when you already know what the guy's about to say. (Like bascule's point about "crib notes" above.) It's good to experiment and shake things up from time to time, though, don't you think? I'm sure you'll learn something from the experience.

Fascinating subjects, too. PostScript is actually a Turing-complete programming language, and it addressed a really interesting computer engineering problem back in the day.

Pardon me, I must have been editing when you posted that; I was adding a line about gridlock to the first paragraph. I completely agree, gridlock is VERY MUCH a problem. But let me ask you this: Would you agree to allow the REPUBLICANS to have that same majority in order to remove that gridlock? If you can't answer that question "yes", then the suggestion that the Democrats should get that kind of power in order to eliminate gridlock is disingenuous, hypocritical and partisan. These people have behaved BADLY, ignoring what's best for the country time and time against JUST TO DEMONIZE THE OPPOSITION. You don't reward that behavior with more power. Not if you are sane.

NO! You DO NOT reward a spoiled brat by giving it more toys to play with! We need to throw all these rascals OUT, not reward them for their idiocy! They're in gridlock because they can't see past their own partisanship, not because neither party had enough power! By various news accounts, something like $1.5 trillion has been spent, or promised to be spent (and we all know what THAT means), over the last couple of WEEKS. Glancing at the IRS web site they show something like 140 million taxpayers in 2006, and according to this web site about 40% don't pay any taxes, so call it around 100 million, being outrageously generous (and to simplify the math), and I come up with FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS. A debt which the Chinese will pick up for now. For now. So in effect these people just handed you a $15,000 fully maxed-out credit card, your name printed right on the front, the interest rate yet to be determined later (but accumulating now!), and you're not even allowed to make payments on it! And you want one of these two criminal parties to achieve a 60% majority because you think THAT's what's been wrong with this country? Really? That's what's wrong with it, that neither one has enough power? My god, if people were actually getting the BILL for this, the revolution would have come and GONE already!

Then they go under. The thing I don't think people realize, and which I think ParanoiA was getting at, is that we're reacting, not acting. The actions we're undertaking here are not long-term strategies, they're short-term panic moves. It's like trying to steer a heard of cattle. Earlier we could poke and prod here and there and keep it on course, but today's half-point prime reduction is like a cowboy shooting his pistol next to the rampaging herd and not even being heard over the din. And these massive bailout plans seem like a good idea on paper, but what they're really doing is transferring debt from risky ventures onto the backs of solid, risk-free labor -- citizens and companies that did NOT take risks. We're now going to depend on those people to save us from the folly of other individuals who should have known better. So why would those risky, dangerous individuals do anything different in the future? And what happens if the NEXT venture has to be bailed out before we finish paying for the FIRST catastrophe? Since when did the daily fluctuations of Wall Street become a reason to expend sums of money on the scale of the entire annual budget at the drop of a hat? Millions of businessmen and -women around the world are shaking their heads over the sheer idiocy of these massive bailouts, watching stock values of perfectly profitable, well-managed companies go into the tank for no reason whatsoever. That's not the "failed economic policies of the Bush administration" at work, folks. It's the sheer stupidity of an under-informed public guided by partisan ideologues and a drama-oriented mainstream media. This country has spent nearly $20,000 per taxpayer over the last two weeks, with no sign of anyone putting on the brakes -- on the contrary, it looks like we're just getting started. The wheels are falling off the bus, and BOTH PARTIES SEEM TO WANT THEM TO COME OFF.