Pangloss

GLAAD is just annoyed that the entire month is already "taken" by another PC special interest. Somebody should point out to them that they should just relax. After all, it's the shortest month of the year.

When I was at Georgia Tech back in the early 1980s (majoring in Physics), I had to take a class on "US History Since 1865". I put the bold type on there just to emphasize the focus on the course. For some reason, they invited a professor from Morris Brown (which is a prominent African American university just a couple of miles away) to come in and teach the course. We spent the first six weeks talking about the causes of the civil war (which, last I checked, actually *ended* in 1865). The rest of the course we spent covering the Civil Rights movement (at least he got the timing right on that one). That was the entire course! I've never figured out if this happened because he was given incorrect information about what to teach, or because he figured those kids down at the North Avenue Trade School needed a little help. Either way, the course was a blast. Learned a lot and it was interesting as hell. Go figure, huh? (Course I've never quite figured out why the US never got involved in World War 2....)

I've decided to rule out discussing it with the students. Too many pitfalls there. I don't want to make the situation worse. At the moment I'm leaning toward just sending them a few names regardless of race. I wish I had some input on this from an African American professor who supports black history month, just so I could maybe understand their POV.

Not to change the subject, but just to inject a note of realism into the discussion, let me talk briefly about how my wife's business handles this sort of thing. I think it's an interesting example of how the compromise between socalism and capitalism works out pretty well. They're a small manufacturing firm that makes garage doors that are hurricane proof. They're better than other doors they compete with, and often their doors are the only ones of their type that pass the tough building codes set by the state government to deal with hurricanes. IMO this is a great example of the innovation of capitalism meeting the safety control of popular government (not socialism I admit, but it's a nod in that direction). Doors are safer, businesses get a chance to innovate and compete with one another, and in the final analysis everyone wins. Because the company is successful at making better doors, it can afford to pay its workers more (starting laborers make a couple bucks more than minimum wage, and it scales up from their based on skill improvements and development and length of service). But it runs deeper than that -- one of the reasons they're competitive is because they hire workers who are competent, and competent workers means paying more money. So again, hiring smart and paying more equals a win-win situation. In this case the "socialist" contribution would be that the minimum wage constitutes a low water mark that our heroes can base their pay on (i.e. they pay more than that amount, which attracts better workers). The competition, well, one company in particular is often joked about in our house, and just doesn't seem to get it. They hire anybody off the street, they pay bare minimum wage, and their doors don't pass inspection. They skate by because of infrequency of inspection and (as recent arrests have revealed) corruption in the system. They undersell "our" doors in price, but only the shoddy builders buy from them. Most of them know that if they want good doors they have to come to "us". (I say "us" and "our" because of course I'm married to someone who works there, but aside from stories at the dinner table I'm not really involved.) Under this new regulation our company will be more or less unaffected. Some of the lower-paid, more recently employed workers may complain that they're not making as much over minimum wage as they were before the law was put into effect, but that's easily resolved by bumps they probably would have earned anyway. The law also includes a tax incentive for small businesses which may benefit the company in some way. The other company, however, may well be harmed by the new law. They'll have to pay their workers more, and they won't have an increase in business to absorb that cost. These are the guys we'll hear about in the media when the law hits the books, I guess. The point being that in my opinion the compromise between left-leaning social consciousness and right-leaning capitalist profit motive is alive and working very well in our society. It certainly isn't a perfect situation and we read every day about failures and problems. But I think the back-and-forth nature of these dilemmas has brought about a unique kind of innovative spirit that keeps driving us forward.

Indeed. I agree with those who say that China is teaching us something very fundamental and historically important about the relationship between capitalism and the western concept of freedom. We've always assumed that the two run hand-in-hand, but really they don't. (But the balance in China is an extremely delicate one, and it remains to be seen if they can actually pull it off over the long haul.) At any rate, I think anybody who sees China as a pure communism or socialism is thinking a pretty odd thing. After all, that is a society where the difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" should have even Noam Chomsky screaming for a ticket on the next flight home.

There is actually a fairly well-accepted process by which news reporting agencies can seek objective feedback: They can use an ombudsman. Unfortunately in recent years the ombudsman practice has become less acceptable to agencies determined to report a particular perspective. A brief analysis of the history of the New York Times in this area provides all the necessary insight (since every news reporting agency pretty much follows whatever the Great Gray Lady does).

I expect any Vista-related issues will be resolved fairly quickly. Although I'm recommending most casual computers users (who ask) that they wait and stick with XP for a while, I think we'll probably see a lot of new computers ship with Vista very soon, and those people need to be able to run Firefox as well. (Need! heh)

Can you tell us more about what it is that you'd like to accomplish? Is your goal more along the lines of learning the fundamentals of programming, or are you most interested in getting some kind of specific applications up and running quickly? It's perfectly fine if it's something in-between, but that would help us tive you the best answer.

Both Russian and Chinese experiments in socialism failed, not because of despotism, but because when you take away someone's incentive to work then they stop being productive and your business stops being competitive. Sure China's going strong now, because they've chucked economic socialism and embraced a capitalistic approach. But that last bit that I bolded above -- the US economy collapsed in 1990?! So we were all out in the street with empty store shelves begging to swap governments with the Soviets, is that it? Come on, that's a ridiculous comparison. Not even in the same ballpark. Do you have *any idea* what the people of Eastern Europe and Russia were going through in the early 1990s? The US suffered a minor recession at that time, and another one at the end of the Clinton presidency. Blips on the radar.

Thanks again for the input. I'm learning quite a lot from this thread.

An interesting way to put it.

I appreciate you being more clear in the direction of your replies last time. That was really frustrating me, and if I misunderstood you I apologize. Anyway, to answer the above: Because in fact what you're talking about is earning $1,000 and paying out $2,000 in wages. Don't get me wrong, I'm well aware that the average profit margins of corporations has risen and companies can often afford to pay more than they do. I'm all for people walking off the job if they don't think the company is paying them enough. That's the American way. But forcing companies to pay more is how we got into this problem in the first place. The moment you force a company to pay a specific amount, that's what they're going to pay, and not a dime more. You're just screwed over anyone who wants to take initiative for themselves. And how much profit is that renewable fruit going to generate if it's rotting on the branch because the people in the store are only willing to pay $1 for it but the people who pick it want $2? Supply and demand controls this just fine, along with a useful set of laws that generally helps us avoid the extreme excesses. Controlling it completely doesn't mean people make more money, it just means we end up staring at fruit nobody can afford. Strawman yourself. I don't care how much it costs, if you're forcing me to buy it for them and calling those people "poor", that's just wrong. They don't need a $50 XBox360 to "live" (that was your word, remember? "To live" is what you said. Not "have the same toys as the Jonses.") Yeah yeah, we know, people who write for the right are incompetent and people who write for the left are literary geniuses. It's a familiar refrain. But great, that's fine, then we've answered your question -- you're not the only one who's paying attention to the suffering of the common man. I'm glad we cleared that one up. Now let me ask you a question, paraphrasing your own: Am I the only one who remembers the fall of the Soviet Union and the stories that came out of that failed experiment in socialism? Well I think you've obviously gone (and continue to go) quite a long ways past that, but ok. As I said above, I don't really have a problem with the current minimum wage increase, and would probably accept an even larger one, under the right circumstances. See my post directly above.

I agree. That's why we don't let them operate unrestricted. Well again when it comes to the current minimum wage situation, it's not something I'm really opposed to. Not only is it an acceptable political compromise to me, but I also think that the vast majority of minimum wage earners are temporary, and move on to something as soon as they can. To that end, if a bump here and there can help those people out, that's fine -- I just see it as another form of welfare. It's if/when you start talking about "living wage" and "fairness" that we disagree. Like this: In your judgement. That's the point -- you're making a decision based on what you think is "fair", rather than what kind of revenue that amount of labor actually produces. It's a bit like having a society that uses energy based on the amount of energy it wants to use, rather than making that call based on how much energy it can actually manage (e.g. pollution). Why is it that we understand the concept of balancing our "in" and our "out" when it comes to something like global warming, but the same followers of scientific principles can't seem to fathom it when it comes to financial matters? (I guess it shouldn't be too surprising, though. I've met rocket scientists who couldn't balance their checkbooks!) ;-)

Actually it's pretty obvious at this point that we have a significant ideological difference that we're not going to be able to find common ground on. So I'm just going to say that we'll have to agree to disagree on it and leave it at that. You can keep arguing with Paranoia if you want. My position is that we have (and should continue to have) a modified capitalist system in which the harder you work and the greater the value of your work, the more money you earn, and those who temporarily need assistance should be able to get it (even if that means taking some, maybe even more, money away from the earners). Your position is that everyone should make the same amount of money, regardless of the value of the work or the amount of effort they put into it. Because what's "fair" is more important than the monetary equivalent of basic physics. Good luck with that. I hope it works for ya.

I'll take a shot at a couple of things I spotted that looked like they were aimed at me. (sigh) No, I don't. That's entirely your creation based on the assumption that money grows on trees or created out of thin air or something. A strange position for someone who ostensibly follows the path of science. As for the rest of your post, it's very revealing that all you have is demonization. These arguments always come down to making people who recognize that money has to be created through hard work are somehow bad people and therefore have to be attacked. It's a pretty pathetic argument, really. Downright unscientific. Of course they do, which is why our society should continue to extend a helping hand to people in need. I'm also not opposed to increasing the current annual expenditures in this area, which, by the way, total almost as much money as the Defense budget. (But perhaps your text there was aimed at Paranoia, I don't know, because again you forgot to specify. Yeesh!) What I have are moral qualms about taking people's hard-earned money away at the point of a gun and giving it to people who haven't earned it just so they can buy an XBox 360. What I *don't* have are qualms about taking a small percentage of people's hard-earned moeny away at the point of a gun and giving it to people who haven't earned it but are temporarily down on their luck and need a hand. That's good for me, that's good for the future of society, and it's a sound investment. What's so hard for you to understand about that? (Or again were you talking to Paranoia? Curse you, you posting dweeb!) I read my Upton Sinclair. Did you read your Ayn Rand? If we're talking about extremes it seems only fair to look at both sides of the coin before we meet in the reasonable middle. ROFL, right ok. Now the truth comes out -- you're not really looking out for the disadvantaged, you're just obsessed with the requirement that everyone make the same amount of money, regardless of the value of their work or the amount of treasure that work actually generates. Haven't we tried that as well? And didn't it also fail? Duh.

Mokele, I don't appreciate being lumped in with Paranoia, as if our arguments are the same. They aren't, and now I'm supposed to figure out which quotes are mine and somehow not miss anything in that wall of text? Come on, that's not fair, especially when your entire argument is based on demonization.

Is there any ready information on how the report was peer reviewed? What process was used? Thanks.

Wow, couple really interesting suggestions there, thanks guys. Dak that bit about being able to point out that the students found it insulting was really clever. I also liked Glider's idea of talking it over with them as a class. It's still awkward, but it puts all the cards on the table and one can never really be ostracized for being honest in forthright, in my experience.

He might as well set a timetable, because Hillary has already more or less set one by saying that if she is elected president she'll pull us out in January '09. (Obviously that's only about a 50% probability from the terrorists' point of view.)

I've been messing around with a copy of Vista I got from the school, and I was just wondering if anybody here has had a chance to load up Firefox 2.0 in Vista yet. Did it work ok or are we waiting for a service release? Thanks!

(Mod note: I've changed the title of this thread. Seemed easier than moving posts.) Here's a link to a news story on the new report that was released today: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003552433_climate02m.html As a Global Warming Skeptic, I found the report sobering. To be honest, much of the information that is most convincing about the situation has been discussed here already. But the intellectual honesty and integrity (and broad-based support) in this case is pretty overwhelming. (So would he be a "global warming denier" because he doesn't accept it 100%?) Anyway, more to the point: And of course even if they're wrong, making major changes in how human society consumes energy is likely a very good idea at this point. Ironically, this year no hurricanes hit the Eastern Seaboard for the first time since 1934! Kinda reminds me of the time Al Gore gave a speech on global warming on the coldest day in 50 years. But of course the main reason for that was the return of El Nino, which itself may be a facet of global warming. (I think the book is still out on hurricanes and global warming -- the evidence about water temps is intriguing, but there's still a lot we don't understand about those amazing storms.) But I think we're in a time now where those jokes can be viewed as ironic because they were right, rather than ironic because they were wrong.

As some of you may know, I'm a professor of information technology at a small southern university, and working on my PhD in information systems (the only point there being that they're paying for my education and I can't be real picky about where I'm working for a while). The other day an interesting situation came up and I haven't quite figured out what to do about it. I thought it might be interesting to see what other people think. This, of course, is Black History Month. It occurs in February because it's the shortest month of the year. (No, really.) That fact is bad enough, and many modern African Americans such as Morgan Freeman and Bill Cosby have commented that they're insulted by the whole thing and refuse to participate. I suspect my for-profit school, which has many African American students and heavily recruits in African American high school districts, has no clue about this controversy, and merely participates in the event for reasons of political correctness. Anyway, getting to the point, I've been asked to "recommend" some of my post promising and hard-working students. The letter didn't specify what I was recommending them for, just that it was being done "in conjunction with Black History Month". The letter did not specify whether the students had to be African American, and inquiries sent to the secretary who forwarded the email on behalf of the Vice President were not responded to. My Dean was unable to answer my question in a meeting today. Bizarre, isn't it? I'm not African American so maybe I can't fully understand how they might feel about being singled out like this, but I think I would feel at least mildly insulted -- like I was being told that I was a good student for a black man. To be honest, I doubt most of the African American students really care about Black History Month, or what the school does or does not do in observance of it. But some of them might, I don't know. What do you all think? Am I making a mountain out of a molehill, and should I just shut up and send in a recommendation, or is there a valid concern here?

For the record, I was employed at minimum wage early in my career. You make it sound like they had no choice. I reject that notion wholesale. And as such, you're asking the wrong questions. The right questions are: Why would you try raising kids while making minimum wage? Why would you buy a car while making minimum wage? Why would rely on a minimum wage job and do nothing about your future knowing that at some point in the future you could get sick? Even more revealing, people who find themselves accidentally in these kinds of situations do have options. Hospitals don't turn people away. Children can be given up for adoption. Federal student loans and grants are available. Private help organizations abound. We extend so many helping hands in this society that there really is no excuse for failure. In fact I choose neither -- jobs are not a right, and welfare is not a right. Jobs are a privilege I grant to someone whose productivity I am willing to pay for. Welfare is a temporary boon that I grant with money out of my pocket because I have a big heart and also because I consider it a valuable investment. But the moment they come to see either of those things as a right is the moment I stop supporting them. Socialism is a preference, not a requirement. And it is mutually exclusive to freedom, not complimentary to it. It's just a different set of people getting the shaft. I'm not sure why people find this so hard to understand. Money really doesn't grow on trees, you know. Sure people have a right to raise a family and live a prosperous life. But they do NOT have a "right" to do that at someone else's expense. Thinking so is about having a big heart but zero interest in how the economy actually works. A strange mind set for a scientific crowd, where reality is supposed to reign supreme. But hardly uncommon I suppose.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/bal-te.bz.savings02feb02,0,7479458.story?coll=sfla-business-headlines To summarize, the US Department of Commerce released a report the other day that showed that Americans now have a negative 1% savings rate! Interestingly, as this article explains, economists are actually split over the bottom line impact of this. The general consensus seems to be that it's bad, but how bad it is is up for debate. One of the interesting things they mention is that the poor aren't the only ones doing badly when it comes to putting money aside. Apparently wealthy people are also saving poorly. Of course if you have a lot of money then you don't need to put as much aside, but the real point is that the savings problem appears to inflict all Americans. It's more a matter of an overall societal problem rather than a problem of those with below-average income not being able to, say, fill up their gas tanks. We always hear in this country about the "gap between the haves and the have-nots" (or as President Bush put it, "the haves and the have-mores"). It's supposed to be the highest it's ever been. Well I say great -- glad to hear it. Don't get me wrong, I think our prosperity should allow us to give a bigger helping hand to those who are actually in need. But I think we should also recognize that people who just can't afford the latest XBox360 are not in need! Putting food in people's mouths, that I can help with. Making sure that every American can afford a BMW -- not interested.

In that case it was a pretty good joke. Although I suppose their investors wouldn't find it very amusing!