Pangloss

I think there's some stimulus money for that.

Come on, enough of that. You started the invectives, ParanoiA, in post #4, so you can't really be surprised that they were responded to. Please try to remember that bascule is a substantial contributor and long-time member of this forum, same as you. Let's work with what he said, not what he might or might not have meant, please. If it makes you feel better you can all call me a sadistic, hippophilic necrophile. (though I suppose that would be beating a dead horse)

I'm not really seeing a problem in need of a fix here. Aside from your thread asking if Fox News is a legit org (which one could understand would need to contain an FNC source), I only see thread starts that include other sources in addition to News Corp sources, and only a couple of those. So I think generally people understand that starting a thread based on a single, possibly biased source is a bad idea. Nor have I seen a lot of (or really any) outcry over provocative thread starts. I don't think we really have a history of trouble in this area. It's my general impression that it's really replies that lead to Reported Posts on the Administration board, for example. I also see value in some degree of "provocation", if it challenges and motivates a lively (but civil) discourse. Note that I have never protested your use of the word "teabaggers", your regular posting of inflammatory images of right-wingers, or your regular posting of videos from The Daily Show that ridicule conservatives. Are those okay just because conservatives are in the minority here, so there are fewer people who'd become outraged? (Just as a side note, I also have a problem with lumping the Wall Street Journal in with the New York Post, etc. Ownership by News Corp has not yet, to my knowledge, radically changed that organization, which has always had a conservative editorial perspective anyway. And why would they? It legitimizes conservatives viewpoints if it remains detached and aloof from the fray down in the trenches.) But anyway, that's my opinion (since you asked). But I'd be happy to listen to what others have to say and I'm sure the other mods and admins will be happy to listen as well. I do wish you'd stop posting polls that make people's votes visible because I don't think the software makes it clear enough to the voter that their vote will be visible, and I think that opens people up to potential ridicule.

Just to add a bit, they did give the opponents a full opportunity to present their case, but they really focused on their proposed evidence and its accuracy. I think this is a very good approach, because many of the concerns raised by parents are perfectly valid, and indeed important concerns to raise. As one scientist put it, it's perfectly logical to see a change following an event and question whether that event caused the outcome. It's a clear case of needing to explain that correlation does not imply causation. As the same scientist put it in Frontline, just because the rooster crows before dawn doesn't mean that dawn happened because the rooster crowed. I think this issue underscores the problem of basic science education in this country better than some of the more ideologically-oriented questions that face us today. When we challenge a religious belief, for example, we poke into something that people aren't asking to have challenged. But parents (at least the good ones) generally want good information. They don't like to be ordered to comply, but they do like to be given good advice. Unfortunately in this case the best "advice" may be to remove legal loopholes that allow them to make bad choices. But perhaps we can do a better job of education on this issue, so that concerned parents will understand that it really does serve a purpose, and that it's not about padding the bank accounts of big pharma and its lobbying arm. In the end, Frontline suggests, it's all about the outreach. Opponents have all the cards stacked in their favor, with YouTube and advocacy sites all over the place, and no way to directly challenge them. If it wasn't for other independent voices setting the record straight, the situation would probably be worse than it is, but the medical establishment needs to do better than robot voices on CDC hotlines and cold, detached FAQs on government Web sites. One of the most interesting moments in the piece was of a focus group of parents who were asked questions about the issue. The parents universally declared that they felt that the most important thing was to be given a choice and not to just be told what they had to do. It was clear that none of the parents in the group was familiar with the concept of herd immunity. They didn't realize that their behavior could cause others to become sick who, say, haven't become old enough to receive the vaccine yet. But they sure-as-shootin' understood that they didn't trust the government and large pharmaceutical companies! Anyway, y'all check it out. Good stuff.

Another great Frontline, this time on the war between doctors and some parents on the safety of vaccines. The entire program can be watched online. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=bigimage&utm_source=bigimage One thing that surprised me is that I had been under the impression that this issue was being driven by the religious right, but in fact there wasn't a Bible-thumper anywhere in sight. The Oregon community shown in the opening scenes is full of new age stores, holistic medicine shops and organic foods cooperatives, which actually suggests the opposite, but no specific ideologies were mentioned in the program. Of course that makes sense, really -- parenting seems to know no ideological boundaries. As with the issue of video game censorship, the vaccination debate seems to transcend the usual politics of left-versus-right. But in the end they sure took apart opponents. Piece by piece the argument for avoiding vaccines was completely destroyed. It was some pretty impressive journalism. (Who says journalists are too stupid to understand science? Wait, I do. Remind me to stop saying that.)

There's a lot of wisdom in the above, especially with regard to perception. But I don't see the case against the wealthy, I only see the emotion. IMO the outcome of Walmart not offering part-time jobs is fewer part-time jobs, not more full-time ones. Wealth doesn't "come by twisting people up into lower quality lives", it comes by motivation and opportunity. Conversely, lack of success comes from lack of motivation and inability to spot opportunity. Of course there's also accident and bad luck, but that isn't the fault of the rich either. And society has constructed safety nets specifically designed to help people out when bad luck befalls them. We may even build more of them as needed. And bad luck happens to the motivated-to-become-wealthy person too. Half of all businesses fail within five years. Fail. The people that entrepreneur employed just nod in empathy and go on to work elsewhere. But the entrepreneur may lose everything. Given that such a large portion of the workforce work for small businesses (some realistic numbers here), do we really want to discourage them from trying again? And it's not as if these businesses use slave labor -- employees are paid, and don't have to work there. There's more to life than making money. Why lament the fact that you haven't become wealthy and that other people have? If you're doing something you love and you have what you need then what is the problem, exactly? If you want a Ferrari, do what it takes to get a Ferrari. If you don't care about Ferraris, that's fine too. The grass is green on BOTH sides of the fence. It's that simple. And, by the way, that represents a degree of freedom not seen very often in human history. That's something to celebrate, not lament.

I'm confused by this. Do you feel that it's sitting under a mattress, or somehow locked away? You know financial institutions don't keep all that money in vaults, right?

Wow, that's interesting. I wonder if a bot picked up your thread and fed it to their CS team. Kind of a neat trick, actually.

In a perfect world, where no dodging were possible, I would charge everyone the same income tax rate and call that "fair". I accept a progressive tax because it's a reasonable compromise, though I am irked by the fact that 47% of Americans don't pay a single dime, a number which includes not only low-income folks, but high-income dodgers as well.

That's fine, you're not one of those who claims with one hand that it's a good thing that they're willing to take the low-paying jobs and with the other hand prepares to demand a living wage. But that rift amongst Democrats and liberals exists, as liberal champion Paul Krugman stated in the video clip you so generously provided. Since you saw that show you could simply agree with me that some liberals disagree on this issue, claim that it's not an hypocrisy but rather a difference of opinion (certainly another valid way to interpret the facts), and we could have moved on from this side issue a page and a half ago. Thank you for finally acknowledging that point in your post above. I misunderstood, sorry. I wasn't saying that anyone here was making that argument, I was saying that that argument is made in this country in the political arena. I didn't do that.

Isn't it everywhere? Even if it's not, it's obviously something you want to do every time you drive. What if you get hit through no fault of your own? You obviously want to avoid any potential problems with insurance. How do you show that the car hasn't been stolen? Anyway if you're already carrying your driver's license it doesn't seem like a pressing matter. In fact 31 entire cities think so highly of the benefits of illegal immigrants on their communities that they've become "sanctuaries" for them. Federal law requires local law enforcement to turn over to ICE suspects who are in the country illegally, but these cities have laws that prohibit local law enforcement from doing that. (sources) There's also a substantial "open border" or "free immigration" movement in this country. (sources, typical argument) And within the legal Hispanic community any attempt to tighten border security is seen as racist as well as fascist. Others just say "create an amnesty program", and oppose measures to secure the border on the basis of cost (or perhaps some sort of human kindness or other moral argument). IMO that equates to ignoring the border problem (and actually making it worse, since amnesty without improved security would surely increase the rate further). The conservatives, meanwhile, oppose amnesty while insisting that borders be secured and illegals removed. Which is just as simplified and unrealistic. The common ground here is obvious -- improve border security (it doesn't have to be perfect, just really hard to get in illegally), and then give those already here illegally a path to citizenship. That's what we tried in 2007, and IMO the reason it failed was because people weren't sufficiently motivated to overcome the ideological extremists. Perhaps this time it will be different.

Okay, how do you justify seeing merit in a living wage and at the same time saying that employers can't be assumed to be able to pay more money for the jobs illegals are taking? Would you just wait until the illegals have secured those jobs, and then demand that they receive a living wage, discarding your own argument? That's what I'm suggesting some liberals will do when I mention hypocrisy on this issue. Conservatives certainly have their own set of hypocrisies on this issue; I'm simply suggesting that liberals are being just as unreasonable and stubborn on the various related subissues. Except that Arizona couldn't enforce that law because it was Federal rather than State. Now it can. Whether it's constitutional or not is a great question. And one we're going to find the answer to in relatively short order, I expect. Really? Is that what you think?NOBODY here fails to recognize that there is a problem which needs to be solved. Stop pretending there are here or elsewhere espousing such a silly position. First, don't call people's opinions "silly". Second, I'm not arguing against the opinions of people here at SFN, I'm discussing a common liberal position. And it IS a common liberal position to not acknowledge that there is a problem. Many LIKE the influx of Democrat-leaning voters. Many say that the border cannot be closed, which is an argument against spending money to enforce the border. And you should know this, because you listened to Cynthia McKinney and Paul Krugman, the liberal representatives on the Roundtable, make that very point this morning on This Week. (To which George Will suggested that it would be a rounding error on the GM bailout. I think maybe more like a rounding error on the bank bailout, but he's got the right idea, IMO.) Krugman ALSO made the exact same point I've been making, which is that Democrats are divided on this issue. Or as he put it, divided between "Labor" Democrats who want higher wages and "Business" Democrats who like the idea of cheap workers. There you go, a Nobel Prize-winning Economist and DARLING of the left basically confirming my point that it's a conundrum to support higher wages and illegal immigrants doing low-end labor at the same time.

I think he's saying more like a train, but with a tilted track so that real gravity adds to the cumulative total instead of just disorienting the rider by pulling them in two different directions. Like a NASCAR driver at the apex of a turn. (One of my favorite jokes: "NASCAR is easy, just push the pedal down as far as it will go, and for god's sake keep turning left!")

George Will had an interesting point on that today on "This Week" when he said that we ask law enforcement to make judgment calls all the time. All we have to do is give them appropriate procedures and guidelines to follow. In short, if we end up splitting hairs, fine, just split them very clearly. Is it wrong to ask the Hispanics standing on the street corner looking for work if they're legal citizens because they're Hispanics, or because they're standing on the street corner looking for work? I was just sitting here grading some mid-term exams, and I noticed a similarity in my own thinking. Is it racial profiling for me to think it unsurprising that the black kid sitting in the back row of my classroom failed his test? I wondered about this because he sits right next to an Hispanic kid who got the high score for the class. So was it the back row that made me nod knowingly, or the fact that he's black? I don't know the answer to that, but I do know this: I'll be moving the black kid to the front row next week, and we'll be having a chat about his grades. I'm going to do something, because whether it's my low expectations for him or his own lack of motivation, it clearly isn't working. And maybe that's the point with Arizona as well. All I hear from the left right now is lawsuit-this and demonstration-that. At least Arizona is doing something. How about a little recognition that this is a problem that needs to be solved, instead of a rejection of any actions that don't match their ideology 100%? As George Will also pointed out, as happened with Health Care, Congress can't partially act -- it has to do everything at once. So right now Congress can't solve either the border problem or the illegal presence problem without angering half the country -- it ends up in the ridiculously gridlocking position of having to do both. Whether that's the fault of immigration activists or paranoid border advocates doesn't really matter in the end if they both stop the problem from being solved.

And what if there is probable cause?

You mean like calling them "teabaggers"? I didn't say all lefties are hypocrites. What I actually said in post #12 (after you dragged out the Nazis, btw) is that there is a hypocrisy in the general liberal position of supporting higher rates of pay and opposing the securing of the border. So you say that you support the "living wage" argument. How do you justify supporting a living wage and at the same time saying that employers can't be assumed to be able to pay more money for the jobs illegals are taking? In fact, won't you just wait until the illegals have secured those jobs, and then demand that they receive a living wage, discarding your own argument?

Interesting idea; seems sound enough, if expensive to build. Bear in mind that while we now have significant experience in microgravity ("zero-G") environments, we have zero long-term experience in low-gravity environments. We simply don't know at what gravity point the ill effects of microgravity are no longer found, nor have we any way to find out. If memory serves, that was part of the purpose of the proposed return to the Moon, which has been scrapped (along with Mars, for that matter, rendering the point somewhat moot at the moment).

Anybody know what the exact vote was in that 3-2 SEC decision? That might be interesting to look at in terms of the politics. The timing just prior to the Senate's debate on the financial reform bill is highly suggestive of political gaming.

Okay' date=' here is another "meritless talking point". What you've said above is an argument often used by conservatives in "living wage" debates. To which liberals simply reply "charge more for your product". To which conservatives reply "inflation", food being a key economic indicator. To which liberals reply "so what", suggesting that we can accept a higher food cost because more money is being made by formerly low-income earners who can, therefore, spend more. Do you feel that the "living wage" argument is meritless? See above. The "left" I was referring to is the mainstream progressive movement. Certainly not all of them are hypocrites, of course. Oh my god, get a job and a haircut! And get off my lawn!!!! And stop dating my neice, btw. (Actually I like her boyfriend, but I do harass him a bit about his tendency not to wear shoes!) But seriously, you said "walk around my neighborhood". Would you get in your car and drive to the mall that way? Of course not -- you'd already be in violation of the law. So I'm still not really seeing a huge problem here.

It is wrong if they told their clients they were committed to building up that investment while at the same time secretly knew that it was not a sound investment, and then leveraged their clients resources to make money for themselves by betting against the very same investment they were selling.

I think in the interest of full understanding of the problem we actually have to modify your second point to the following: 2) Certain people want said people to work for them at a certain rate of pay. And therein lies a significant hypocrisy in liberal preferences on this issue, because many of those jobs currently taken by illegal labor could be given to people at higher rates of pay if the illegal labor was less common. Padren addresses the flip side of this in post #4, regarding working conditions and so forth, which is another hypocrisy by the left. The progressive front will simply blame working conditions and pay rates on the employer and ignore their own contribution to this problem. It's a question of compromise, IMO. And it's not without logical merit. They got in. People employed them. They didn't break any other laws (or they'd have been deported, right?). In some way, on some level, the system failed. Giving them a path to citizenship is an acknowledgement that this is more gray than black-and-white. And it's no free pass -- they still have to go through a process, which means there's no guarantee. But most immigrants I know have never asked for a free pass, and aren't those the kind of folks we want? Regarding the ID thing, I empathize with your concerns, but I already have to carry ID around any time I climb into my car. I'm not really seeing a huge concern there, but I respect your opinion on it. (And the fact that you're not trying to call me a Nazi.)

George Will's column in the Washington Post on Thursday offered what could be seen as a different perspective on this problem of not knowing what to cut -- cut almost everything. For evidence Will offers New Jersey's new Republican governor Chris Christie, who inherited a multi-billion-dollar deficit when he was overwhelmingly voted in over Democrat John Corzine last fall, but also some of the highest-taxed constituents in the country. Previous administrations raised taxes 115 times in the last eight years. New Jersey citizens pay a top income tax rate of 9% (on top of Federal income tax), versus Pennsylvania's 3%. (Actually this government PDF says it's 10.75%, and third-highest in the country, but maybe Will has a different source.) And property taxes have increased 70% in the last 10 years. So, what, they should be taxed more? Yeah right. But the budget still has to be balanced. So what does Christie do? He accepts 375 of 378 cost-cutting suggestions and in EIGHT WEEKS he knocks $13 billion off the balance sheet. And he's just getting started. THAT's change I can believe in. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/21/AR2010042104451.html

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/04/19/1386782/partisan-discipline.html So now you know, all you yellow-bellied surrender monkeys -- you just weren't spanked enough!

On Friday Arizona's governor signed a new bill into law for that state which requires police to check an individual's citizenship status if they suspect that the individual is in the country illegally. Couple articles pulled at random from Google News: a liberal source a conservative source The state doesn't allow racial profiling, but some see this as a slippery slope to that very thing. The state already allows for checking when it has a suspect in custody, and it's not the only state that allows that (see second source above). From the LA Times article: The problem is numbers -- Federal enforcement is insufficient to deal with the problem. Local enforcement has to participate. So I'm not really sure I see the problem here. If race does become a reason for checking citizenship then yes, that would need to be stopped. But as far as I can tell the opposition to this law seems to equate to be a gradualism argument (slippery slope fallacy) -- wanting to hold the line here due to prejudice and racism, both real and imagined. I understand they have concerns, but what exactly is the opposing argument? We talk all the time about Republicans/conservatives not having a plan for the economy. Well what exactly is the Democrat/liberal plan for immigration? To do nothing to secure the border, but give citizenship to those here illegally? How is that NOT an argument for leaving the border open and uncontrolled? How is it NOT self-serving and a direct abuse of the democratic system of government to advocate ignoring the law so that your party can pick up millions of new voters? And if that's NOT their plan, then what exactly is it? Immigrants are having a tough time with their lot, I get it -- I'm sorry, and I'm happy to help them out of human kindness. But one of the reasons I CAN help them out is because we HAVE a border. Is it really THAT unreasonable for me to want that border to remain -- NOT CLOSED! -- but under control? What do you all think?