Pangloss

Indeed.

The question however was why it's an emergency when there's another bill on the table, if it covers the same territory.

Well I don't think he is, I think he's trying to point out hypocrisy in bascule's argument. But I don't think he's finding it -- bascule's been very consistent in his criticism of that bill and holding to his generally-progressive viewpoint. I think jryan is also missing the point that nobody's really holding up the Democrats as a model of perfection here. He does make some good points above, at least in terms of how badly the Dems have done, but I don't think there's any lack of recognition by the public for Congress' failures. In fact I think part of the reason why we're seeing reconciliation come up now is the widely-held and frequently-reported analysis over the last quarter that Democrats are going to lose a lot of seats in November. In for a penny, in for a pound.

It's a good point, and it's disappointing to see spending on a new benefit (and unemployment compensation period that did not previously exist) called an "emergency". And this quote from above... ... actually illustrates just how inadequate PAYGO is and how difficult it will be for ANY political party to put the brakes on spending. If we had spending under control then $10 billion "emergency" extensions to compensation benefits wouldn't be a problem. But it isn't under control, there are very few ways to illustrate that fact to the American people, and while I think that this was the wrong action, the right actions are not being performed. Bunning's detractors in Washington are hypocrites, and they haven't earned the right to tell him he's wrong.

Loved Cryptonomicon. It's funky the way all that disparate stuff hangs together, but it's a great example of creative writing. It didn't seem to work as well for me in the books that followed, and I ended up stopping after the first one in that trilogy, but I plan to go back and slog through it eventually. My grandfather's story is very similar to that of Stephenson's grandfather with regard to the Philippines -- he was captured by the Japanese and spent five years in the civilian prison camp. There's actually a small but active community of Americans who were prisoners of war there. The Philippines in general are kind of a forgotten footnote from the grand story of WW2, and it was nice to see some attention paid to it.

Well put.

I love this story -- it's a great example of why I follow politics. Jim Bunning is a 78-year-old very-conservative Republican Senator from Kentucky who's in his second term (following a lengthy stint in the House and long service in local and state politics). He's currently in the midst of a personal, one-man filibuster stopping a $10 billion bill that would provide a simple 30-day extension to continue previously-signed spending on road improvements, unemployment checks for laid-off federal employees, and I believe a few other odds and ends. His objection is that the bill was never paid for. Democrats in leadership procedurally rejected adding the package to the untapped stimulus fund, and Bunning decided to pitch a fit and point out in the most public way possible that this money did not grow on a tree in Michelle Obama's vegetable garden. Unfortunately he ran straight into direct human consequences, which is the sort of thing the media just LOVES to pounce on. Today ABC News' Jonathan Karl cornered Bunning, who is known for his dramatic theatrics, and asked him why he was making unemployed Americans suffer. It was a great scene, very dramatic and fun to watch. The Washington Post's political blog set up a page for it here, which includes the video from ABC's web site (little easier to view it this way, without ABC's ridiculously obtrusive CSS layers): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/angry-jim-bunning-blows-off-ab.html?wprss=44 Bunning is, of course, making a huge mistake here. But what's really interesting about this situation is what's between the lines. A few points to consider: 1) Bunning isn't running for re-election. 2) He's not happy about that fact. 3) He actually supports this bill. Bunning is angry because he can't get funding and support from the Republican party right now. His approval rating is very low and he's seen by the GOP as a write-off for this fall's election, and he's really upset about that. Which of course is why Bunning is acting alone -- there's a fair amount of conjecture out there that Bunning is just doing this to hurt the GOP out of revenge. But either way it's a bad thing to do to the country right now. He's making a huge mistake, and this is not the kind of bill he needs to be pulling this sort of move on. The one he should be filibustering is the one they immediately started debating after he filibustered this one -- a $160 billion monstrosity that has even less certainty for payment. But it's certainly great theater! Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedSo this evening Bunning got a concession in exchange for ending his filibuster. What he got was a single up-or-down vote on an amendment that would have paid for the bill he was filibustering with an offset in a tax credit for paper companies on a wood product called "black liquor" (which I'm guessing is this nasty-sounding stuff -- I guess it's an alternate fuel). The vote failed with 43 votes in favor. Gee, we sure wouldn't want to actually pay for a bill, eh? The Senate then passed the extension Bunning had been filibustering, by a vote of 78 to 19. Harry Reid immediately characterized the vote as "Republicans realizing they were wrong". Uh huh. Thank goodness the Democrats are in charge and taking care of business! I don't know what we would do if those evil Republicans were still minding the store. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/03/AR2010030300122.html?hpid=topnews

Even when they need to. Fascinating op/ed piece in Washington Monthly about the failures of the modern regional accreditation system in the US and the sad story of Southeastern University, a small school in Washington, D.C. The accreditation issue has come up in the national spotlight recently following the Obama administration's Education department's demands for regional accreditation bodies to toughen up their standards. The only reservation I have about this piece is that it doesn't mention the simple fact that Federal student loans are also available to a whole body of schools with a far LOWER standard of practice -- national accreditors. These bodies represent fly-by-night, shopping-mall-storefront schools that don't even TRY to maintain the appearance of propriety, but are just as capable of reaping the guaranteed-profit windfall of Federal student loans. So the author should be careful what he wishes for, but that doesn't reduce the impact of what he's saying. The situation is pretty depressing, but some of his suggestions for improvement were interesting. One of the legitimate complaints from the "school" side is that failure represents a total loss of the entire institution, which is too harsh. But if the system were better at monitoring and intervention then it could catch problems before they become that severe, and correct them, thereby preventing exactly that fear from coming true. I've seen this process first hand, sitting through both accreditation review meetings with representatives from the regional body, and prep sessions where I was told what to say and how to say it (as well as after-meeting debriefs). It's quite a show, and really about the best thing you can say about it is that it's better than nothing. The process itself is so tedious and time-consuming that it does seem to push less-motivated frauds away to faster money-making schemes. Here's an interesting quote that pretty much sums up the story: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1003.carey.html

If I'm reading you right, sure, inserting into a dynamic array at a random point is O(n). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_array

Nice catch! Although it seems to be consistent with Japanese political practice, doesn't it? It's always seemed to me that their sense of community transcends the western perception of apology as a sign of weakness and incompetence, so they may actually look at a statement like that and not think less of the scientists who made the prediction. (But I'm no expert on Japanese politics.)

I don't think that IS how you feel, I'm just pointing out that saying it might alleviate some of the misunderstanding between the two sides. Personally I agree with you -- not saying a thing is not the same as saying it, and presumption is annoying in debate. But sometimes you can point something like that out and save some aggravation. (shrug) And you can all probably stand to do a bit less obsessing over whatever Jackson33 may or may not be suffering from.

Can I just point out here that the important thing is not definitions, but rather the meaning behind them? Whether one sees a program as "socialism" or not, and whether they see that as a good thing or not, is surely a matter of personal judgment. I think, Jackson, the issue people are trying to raise with you is that calling it socialism is not an automatic grounds for universal objection, because there are many aspects of society that have some of the same traits that you're complaining about. The argument is ultimately a bit silly, because jackson33 isn't an anarchist and I doubt we could get EVERYONE on this forum to agree on a complete list of services that are essential and necessary to a proper democratic state. But I also wouldn't mind some of Jackson's opponents acknowledge that there is such a thing as too much service -- that there is an upper limit to spending that has no bearing on human suffering and dramatic emotional appeals. One of the problems I've always had with the modern liberal ideology is the idea that the direction of travel is seen as infinite. It isn't. Money is a renewable resource, but like any renewable resource its potential at any given moment in time is finite, not infinite (though like some renewable resources, its potential can grow over time, but only if we shepherd it carefully). We wouldn't be talking about global warming if there were 3 million cars on the road instead of 300 million (or whatever), and likewise there is a finite number of trillion dollar spending plans that our children's bank accounts will be able to absorb.

Add federal and state unemployment benefits to the list.

I guess this shouldn't be too surprising -- we see this here in Florida every time there's a hurricane warning that doesn't pan out into an actual strike (the next time there's always a larger number of folks who don't heed evacuation warnings), and I'm sure examples abound all around the planet. I guess what they're saying in this Telegraph article is that there's been some criticism (from who I'm not clear) about the tsunami alarm that was issued following the Chilean earthquake. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/chile/7342088/Chile-earthquake-scientists-defend-tsunami-false-alarm.html Well duh. I know it's an inconvenience to evacuate, but from what I've read it's very hard to precisely predict what size waves will result from an earthquake clear across the ocean (gee, ya think?). It's amazing to me that there's a detection and warning system in place at all -- surely a tribute to both science and peaceful cooperation between nations. Something to celebrate, not something to criticize. But I guess it's just human nature. I thought this bit was interesting:

Hang it up, guys. I had the same argument with bascule about Harry Potter. He ain't gonna budge!

You're using this data to draw the conclusion that academic stress is causing homicides? Sort of an obvious sampling error, don't you think?

I'm afraid I have no idea what the situation is like in Canada. I can talk about what it's like for myself and students in my state (Florida), and generally in the US business environment. The PhD does have that potential pitfall. I've seen them get looked at as potential hires in the business environment, and there's a big question mark that goes over their heads. Managers question why they're there and whether they'll depart when an appropriate teaching/research position comes up. Or they'll wonder why you're not out there creating the next Google. But your MSc will open a lot of doors for you, including some that won't be entry-level -- a big advantage over a Bachelors-only candidate. A familiar pattern is: Bachelors call recruiters and beg. Recruiters call Masters and beg. I saw this myself -- after 15 years in the industry and never a whole lot of interest from recruiters, I got my Masters and suddenly my phone would not stop ringing. Certifications can compliment a masters nicely and look very good in the interview process. But the best advice I can give you is to learn how to interview well. Make it a priority. Not sure why you said low wage. If you know your programming, especially client-server business apps, you should be making six figures within 5-10 years of graduation. Depending on your programming skills and luck with employers it could be a lot less, though of course it could end up taking longer. HOWEVER, the current economic meltdown HAS adversely affected employment in the computer industry, so take that into consideration. Today I see about half the job postings I saw 3-4 years ago. But programming is still the fastest growing and highest-paid job in my state, and the industry routinely owns 4-6 of the top 20 jobs in the state (according to the state employment agency). And it seems likely that the recession is on the way out. If your goal is teaching, you really need a combination of work experience and education anyway. Going back for the PhD later will also allow you to freshen up your understanding of subjects that have changed since you were last in school (real-world work tends to focus people on one or two specific areas, and they lose track of what's happening in other areas). Not an easy call, certainly -- I know about the allure of the PhD. But you need to think about what it is that you want, both short term and long term, and carefully weigh your options. For what it's worth, I can tell you that all of these things are only trends, and that everyone I've ever met in this industry is unique, and everyone's path varies from the standard trend in SOME way. Having a good attitude and strong motivation and work ethic is worth a great deal to any manager. Good luck!

I don't see the relevancy of her academic work. Smart people have psychotic breaks too. Stopping campus killings is certainly a laudable goal and worthy of discussion. Seems to be a panic point for concerned parents, at any rate. And of course faculty and staff are charged with a hefty responsibility in this area so it can't be taken lightly. (The rate of undergrads flocking to online schools is bad enough as it is. Just kidding. Sort-of.) We've had incidents, including bomb threats and students who seem unbalanced to other students, who then worry about their own safety. From talking to administrators (following a couple of cases I had to deal with) it seems like there's a whole body of work on this that administrators are receiving training on as they come up through the ranks. Stuff like when to involve an outside counselor, what kind of progress to look for over time, what kind of warning signs require what kind of response, and so forth. It's not an academic area that I'm personally interested in, but it's somewhat heartening to know that there is active study in this area. Because, of course, my you-know-what is right out there, right alongside the students. I think about it every time I mark down an "F", or document a response to a bad/erroneous grade appeal, or just tell a student "no" for any reason. How could I not?

Do they actually differ? I though they all transmitted at the same power. I suppose it makes sense that there would be some difference in reception quality based on antenna configuration, software, etc. We don't really do product reviews/recommendations here, but of course members are welcome to pass along their suggestions. You might be better off looking at some product review sites and discussion boards that focus on that kind of hardware.

I think you can very much be both compassionate and conservative, but I understand your point -- yes, it is very difficult to hold a middle position in American politics, especially in the current climate. It's also a valid point that presidential candidates can't only appeal to moderates. They must also energize their base, or else they just lose because of a different group of lost voters (hatred of the opposition doesn't motivate the same number of voters, as we saw in this past election). It's a point I tend to forget myself, and you're welcome to remind me of it the next time I complain about candidates appealing too strongly to their base. Scott Brown, the recently-elected Republican from Massachusetts, found out about this the other day when he voted for the $15 billion jobs bill (which included tax benefits for the middle class) and was immediately pounced-upon by the tea party movement.

The White House has now delayed implementing the "Cadillac Tax" until 2018 (previously it was going to be delayed just for unions). This is, of course, well after President Obama would leave office following a second term. I guess somebody else can deal with the unions, and those who object to the unions getting special treatment, at that time. That'll be easy, right? Right? <crickets chirp> This was a key component for paying for the health care plan, and was supposed to slowly ramp up to eventually produce around $218 billion by 2020. (More than twice what the new fees on health care companies is supposed to produce.) Now it will... not. Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704479404575087311436130980.html?mod=WSJ_latestheadlines Background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%E2%80%99s_Healthy_Future_Act

It's actually a floor wax and a dessert topping.

Not sure if you noticed this but I replied on the previous page that that chart is two years old. There have been quite a few bumps in the deficit ceiling since then, and when the last one took place the ceiling was said at the time to now be 80% of GDP, and that's assuming GDP isn't revised downward this year to reflect the recession.

Apparently President Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, thinks you need to care too, and that it's not just an economic concern, but actually a national security concern. Today she spoke up on the issue while defending her department's budget. But perhaps it's just an empty talking point.

Do you defend big spending programs on an ideological basis? If not, fine, I believe you and I respect your opinion that the spending you advocate is not ideological. You can do the same, and it's not going to kill you, I promise.