Pangloss

There is something to the notion that public airing is beneficial, but the current political uprising of American voters is media-lead, if not media-driven, and this is demonstrated by the fact that much of what it wants is either mislead or inappropriately misapplied. People are capable of getting upset about spending on their own, but instead they're being lead into the traps of single-issue, media-driven "problems" and "solutions". In short, Glenn Beck isn't qualified to tell the American people what they can do about the stupidity in Washington. And when he does so, he makes the problem worse, not better. That having been said, I must admit that we Americans rarely get to the right answers in a straight line. (shrug)

First, let me just say that I think that's a very astute analysis. That was an interesting post, and one I largely agree with. I will contend one point, but mainly by the way of supporting the rest of your argument. Well... maybe not so much of an overtly political one, true. But I think there is a narrative, and it's one that consistently sticks a thorn in the side of many of us that reside to the right side of the political aisle. It's much more subtle and familiar, and it's more accurately rooted with the real lessons this country has learned over its history (yes, I'm saying that the mainstream media's politically-correct viewpoint has more common sense and lessons-learned behind it). It's generalizations are more likely to show up on Oprah or The View or Larry King, and are generally utilized in an apolitical sense, as "good advice", or "smart thinking". But just because a talking point is utilized in an apolitical manner does not mean that it does not have political ramifications. They call it "the culture war" for a reason. Watch "Rick's List" some afternoon on CNN. I've been picking up a little time on it here and there because it's coming on during my lunch break, and it's pretty revolting. Ironically, Rick Sanchez cut his teeth on a local Fox affiliate here in South Florida that prided itself on "edgy" newscasting, with lots of bells and whistles and ambulance chasing and helicopter police chases and not so much accuracy or truth. I think he would fit right in at Fox News -- in fact I would go so far as to say that aside from the specific narrative he's supporting, with its less-political aspect we agree on, I don't see any difference between him and a Fox News talking head like Shepherd Smith at all. I do think the politically correct crowd is getting better at being less remonstrative of conservatives. These days it's less about punishing people for their voting habits, and more about reaching out on the issues. There's still often a difficult-to-swallow undertone of progressive ideology, but a lot more objectivity and listening going on. Conservative conserns are being heard, not just dismissed. This is important, and a good step. But anyway, getting back to Fox, yes I agree that it's different, and Fox News' political narrative is obvious to any objective observer. They don't even try to hide it, they just "balance" it and call it a day, two wrongs making a right as if that should silence any critic. They're wrong, they'd damaging this country every hour they're on the air, and the only thing worse would be to silence them. (Not that you were suggesting such.) You mentioned that they don't get large audiences for similar shows, and let me just expand that point -- I regularly watch ABC's "This Week" (sadly in decline following George Stephanopoulos' bizarre departure to Good Morning America), and I think that's a good example. They're "round table" generally consists of one or two "conservatives" and one or two "liberals", usually intended to balance each other out. But the dialog is completely different. It's respectful, they speak at a level well above popular demagoguery, and they make strong, intelligent points and acknowledge each other's valid arguments. In a way it's much like the difference between DemocraticUnderground.com and our discussions here. NBC's Meet the Press and CBS's Face the Nation are similar in nature, and I think this illustrates your point nicely. This is a particularly interesting point, btw: I think you may be on to something there. Obviously it's not just conservatives, and may be driven more by real-world concerns and generational differences than ideologies, but as trends go I think you're probably right. (I'm 44, and more than half of my friends still have 4:3 televisions and no digital sound. About half are on Facebook. If the sampling wasn't so small I'd say that I'm on some kind of technology cusp.) Also worth considering here is young conservatives who are actively political and extremely well connected with technology. While they have been overwhelmingly Democratic in their registrations, they don't seem to like the guiding ideologies of their elders very much. There were reports in late 2008 of large numbers of youths from the religious right who were voting for Obama, for example, but even the liberal ones seem to be more in tune and empathetic with conservative concerns than previous generations. They may want marijuana legalized, but they want their guns, too. Maybe it's that video game influence. Good post.

Fair enough. To quote Kurt Vonnegut, I believe that people are what they say that they are, so we should be careful what we say that we are.

Sorry you had to get into this, but we appreciate you coming by to take care of it.

Evan Bayh wrote an op/ed piece for today's New York Times, outlining his reasons for departing. Amongst other things, he calls for a reduction of the number of votes required to end a filibuster from 60 to 55, and requiring members of the Senate to remain present during any filibuster. Changing the filibuster last came up in 2005, when it was reviled by Democrats. Now some of those same Democrats support the idea (source). Funny how that happens. But getting back to Bayh's op/ed piece, I've pasted some interesting quotes below that support my point about the present climate of partisanship. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21bayh.html?pagewanted=1&ref=opinion He goes on to talk about the need for campaign finance reform and some interesting aspects of the filibuster problem that I had not heard before. Worth a read.

Oh I see, thanks. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedColumnist Thomas Friedman in today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/opinion/21friedman.html?em

You seem to be offering that opinion in rebuttal of my post, but I'm unclear how any of that disputes what I just said.

Yes, there are traditionally more registered Democrats than Republicans in this country, but that fact misses the key element of American politics -- independents. This 2004 chart is from the Wikipedia: In addition to registered independents, a minority number of voters registered in each of the parties are also willing to sometimes vote for candidates from the other party. A figure you commonly hear in political discourse is that 60-80% of the country votes for the same party each election, with around half of that die-hard vote going to each party. These are what I like to call "the irrelevant voters", because their votes are not carefully considered by their owners. They think they're participating in the process, and they do play a small role, but it's not a very important one. Also, note that recent disenfranchised Republicans haven't exactly flocked to the Democratic rolls -- what they've done is become independent. Independents are the fastest-growing political orientation in the country. (source) They may be the fastest-growing political orientation in American history. And amongst younger voters the lack of connection with the traditional parties is even more stark -- 40% of them already proclaim themselves independent, and half refuse to identify with any traditional ideological label. (from a recent Harvard study cited in the same source as above) Which is why the real power in this country rests with those with OPEN minds. NOT those who have decided that Republicans or Democrats specifically are the root of our problems. And, in my opinion, the unilateral condemnation of one party or ideology is pointless and immature.

Sure, it's basically a question of theory versus applied, much as it is with the other sciences. The Wikipedia has a good article that breaks down the areas of applied CS here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_science#Applied_Computer_Science That graphic lists the different fields of study in a very appropriate way, but when you look at degree programs they tend to be listed by a more interpreted kind of name. My graduate alma mater has separate, distinct programs for "Computer Science", "Information Technology", "Information Systems", "Computer Information Systems" (my Masters was this), "Information Security", and a few spin-offs in the field of education. Pinning down a professor or dean over there on the distinctions between "Computer Information Systems" and "Information Systems" can be pretty amusing, and my own analysis based on the dissertations and entrance requirements suggests that the only distinction is that the three-word version is more stringent. But hey, I guess that's what works for them. I took an Information Security class at the PhD level last year that had over 50 people in it, half of whom worked for Homeland Security, one of the intelligence agencies, or one of the major defense contractors, so they must be doing something right. The main distinction seems to be that Computer Science programs are more scientifically and mathematically rigorous. These are the system-level programmers, the writers of operating systems, device drivers, big-money games and so forth. IT/CIS learners focus on becoming developers and managers of information, and if they become programmers they tend to work in "managed" code environments (Java, .NET, etc), where most of the groundwork is done and your code focuses on what you need to get your task done. Most of that work is business-related client-server work (basically tapping databases for storage and retrieval). But there is a legitimate doctoral level for these "lesser" fields, and it is growing, and in most cases it is more popular (and the jobs are more in demand) than CS. Managing information is a critical business function for any business or (increasingly) government. Securing that information is also critical. Doctoral researchers in these fields look at efficiency and process. They're going to recommend a new method, not a new algorithm. (I am of the personal opinion that the greatest potential for growth and development in all of the computer sciences is in the efficient and effective reporting on collected data.) Which is not to say that a CS researcher can't earn the big bucks in applied computer technologies. On the contrary, they're at the top of the pyramid and command the high ground of just about any subject they care to touch. Since CS researchers are not just the big dogs, but are often also the smartest researchers, they're often able to pick up applied methodologies quickly and then apply new insight into them. Which is why the general advice remains "go for CS... if you can". But don't be afraid to fall back on one of the "easier" fields, which may also have a lot to offer. Good luck!

Yes, IMO that works up to a point -- the purpose of government intervention is generally not efficiency but rather to have an objective third party intercede. Unfortunately since cost is a factor the efficiency issue does have to be addressed. Whether we pay for it in a big fat hospital bill that we cannot afford, or a big fat deficit that we cannot afford, ultimately has the same effect. In my opinion the question of whether public health care is the best option remains undecided, but cannot be easily dismissed along generalized ideological lines (e.g. "socialism is wrong!!!11one"). Ultimately it seems to be a struggle to find the right balance of public intervention (for fairness) and private manipulation (for efficiency). The trick will be finding the right balance, and it may simply be a problem that will not be solved in our lifetimes.

Sounds like a lot of fun.

Perhaps ultimately there are no safeguards in a democracy. As Bob pointed out in the thread about torture memos, with proper motivation and sufficient time lawyers can justify anything. Maybe the only safeguard in a democracy is the quality and motivation of the people you put in charge of it. That having been said, there are many safeguards and protections in the laws and the constitution, and I suppose their underlying purpose is to reduce the damage caused by people that don't live up to the ideal, or decisions that are simply made in error.

I just love Friday afternoons. They're always a highlight of the week for political hobbyists, because that's when administrations "take out the trash", releasing reports and decisions too late for the Friday network evening news, but too minor to stay in the news cycle for three days to hit the Monday broadcasts. Today's gem has the Obama Justice Department clearing the Bush administration lawyers who wrote the now-infamous "torture memos", justifying the use of waterboarding. http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/19/bush.administration.memos/ Of course in these modern times the blogosphere never rests, and it could be an interesting weekend for both liberal and conservative demagogues and their adherents. What do you all think?

Hmm, I dunno, I think alternate versions of history from liberals are far more entertaining. But hey, to each his own I guess.

I just wanted to say thanks for everyone's feedback in this thread. I followed your cumulative (and sage) advise, and was just picked up for my first publication by a peer-reviewed journal. Very exciting! Thanks folks!

Would you trust your government to balance your check book?

I agree completely. I support the stimulus plan, though I have had a number of different concerns about it. I would love to see a new Civilian Conservation Corps, dedicated to repairing the nation's infrastructure. (How about having them build us a new high speed rail network at a rock-bottom price, and with a work force that's grateful for the task? What is the down side here?) But the spending has to be put under control. The very notion that we can have a budget that exceeds income by 50% is mind-boggling and defies basic fiscal common sense. I don't believe we can sustain that even for the short-term projections they're talking about (10-20 years), and I have dire misgivings about projections that show things just sort of automatically becoming balanced at some magical time down the road (when current politicians are conveniently out of office). It needs to be fixed. I don't think this country has a single higher priority. Not terrorism. Not foreign wars. Not health care. Not unemployment. Not hunger. We don't get to fix the other problems if we don't fix this one. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged

Jryan, did you copy that from a 2003 post at MoveOn.org, and just change the dates? Just kidding, I know you didn't. It always amazes me to see arguments shift from one set of political opponents to the other. For a moment I thought I was going to read about "a living wage" in there.

There you go intercepting TBK's questions again! I'll try to keep you two straight, but with the stipulation that I'm aware that he hasn't answered my question yet. (Hmm, sounds like a weekly joint venture between SFN and BBC: "Weekly Questions for The Bear's Key".) (grin) Okay, so you're saying that when Democrats voted for the Patriot Act, and said that they believed in it, then that wasn't an example of voting for it just because Bush won the election. Ditto WMDs, Afghanistan, warrantless wiretapping, etc. They said they believed in those things, and you don't feel they were liars, because you feel that they vote for what they believe in. Cool. I guess if you want to believe that Republicans are liars, and that the truth is that they believe in public-funded health care reform, open borders, and whatever else came up in 2009, that's your prerogative. I'm afraid it seems counter-intuitive to me. One has to look no farther than Olympia Snowe to see an example of what happened any time a Republican tried to get consessions toward a compromise they could believe in -- far-left Democrats bailed, and the leadership had to dump the consessions. (The abortion example you mention is similar, just with moderate Dems instead of Repubs.) At any rate, it's not all bad news for progressives. The health care reform bills were pretty massive pieces of legislation, and that always makes things harder. They're going to take a shot at it piecemeal in 2010, so you may see more progress even without major compromises. We'll see what happens. For what it's worth, I admire the tenacity of Democratic leadership. Real or imaginary, you don't get better opportunities than the one Dems had in 2009.

It's a good idea. There are a lot of payoff matrices (e.g. Prisoner's Dilemma) in politics. We had one on global warming pass through here a while back, where a guy in a YouTube video basically shows how the only logical choice is to act to stop GW because only that choice doesn't have a chance of resulting in destruction, etc. Lots of fertile ground in this area. It might be interesting to look at potential for equilibria with regard to creating legislation. Creative gameplay on the part of a bill's "sponsor" could result in a situation in which players who are normally in "ideological opposition" would be motivated to support a bill they would normally oppose. The dynamic variable there would be ideological compromise, I suppose, on some sort of sliding scale, or perhaps external inputs of some kind (tit-for-tat deals). Lots of variables here, though! You should give Steve Jackson Games a call, Skep.

Oof, that last question is obviously a straw man, but I'll take it as humor. Really the whole question is a straw man, but that may be my fault -- I can understand how you took that meaning from the context of my post. I brought up two separate issues and I did mingle them a bit. The first issue that I raised was that a large number of members, which I agree consists of both Democrats and Republicans, are quitting. This has been remarked on by many observers in the mainstream media, as demonstrated in my previous posts. I believe this supports the notion that partisanship is at a pinnacle, and I've supported that point with evidence as requested. The bit about Democrats quitting in the face of the fall elections is a completely separate subject, and I had the thought that it might help demonstrate to you that people in your preferred party are disillusioned about the state of partisanship in Washington. I agree that that's highly interpretable, and it's really not relevent to our discussion, which is the question of why Congress accomplished so little in 2009. (BTW, I know well that Republicans are also quitting. My congresscritter, 9-timer Lincoln Diaz-Ballart, announced his retirement last week. His brother Mario is moving into my neighborhood so he can run for his brother's seat. What's so strange about that, you might ask? Why, my friend, only the fact that Mario is already a congressman, representing the district next door! Talk about a slap in my moderate-middle face -- he's basically saying "I'm moving into your district, Pangloss, because I know that I'll have a much easier time getting re-elected each year." (SIGH!) I haven't voted for Lincoln in years and I wish we had a strong candidate from either party to step into that race. He angered me greatly when the Assault Weapons Ban expired and he promised me in a personal letter that he would introduce new AWB legislation in the next session, but he never did.) I agree. No, I really have no feelings on the matter one way or the other. On the whole, as a moderate and a believer in compromise, over the past year when his name has come up my reactions have mainly been negative. He was not out in front when Olympia Snowe attempted to work with Democrats on health care, and he has not been out in front on very much of anything. I know he's a moderate, but he's been playing politics with the GOP's current practice, which I disagree with, so I say "buh-Bayh!" (Well okay, I guess I do have some feelings on the matter.) (lol) I have been strongly criticizing both parties, and will continue to do so. But this contention is fascinating -- it looks like the popular liberal meme that Democrats under Bush were forced to vote against their will. Forgive me if I've just misunderstood you? Let's try a specific question: What are these laws that you say Dems helped Bush pass that they would normally have voted against? Which Democrats are you saying voted or a bill they didn't believe in? What are their names? I really want to get to the bottom of this notion that the losing team should vote however the winning team tells them to vote. It's a fascinating perception, and quite common, and not just from the orbital-mind-control-lasers crowd, either. Though again maybe I just misunderstood. I don't mean to put words in your mouth. Again, on the issue of why so little was done in 2009 this question is irrelevent because 60 votes were held by Dems. You haven't answered my question about how you expect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to have compromised with Republicans when they couldn't even find compromise with all Democrats. You've got all these Democrats milling about, unable to accomplish anything, and a small group of sullen, woebegone Republicans standing in a corner looking like someone stole their moustache gell. I just don't see how that group in the corner is responsible for the failure of a 60-seat majority. I've offered you my opinion on why they've largely (and I'm not saying entirely!) failed -- my evidence on the lack of bipartisanship, my evidence on Reid and Pelosi feeling like they had a progressive mandate, my reminder that people only have two parties to choose from here, and so on. Dunno what else to tell you -- you don't agree, way it goes. Intelligent people often disagree. I don't expect more. I don't expect anything at all. If, however, you and/or they want to have progress on your liberal agenda, you're going to have to get something done. That means getting people to go along with what you want. That means giving them something that they want. Compromise is not like extra credit left over from your mid-term exam. You don't get bonus points on health care for a compromise you made on immigration (unless of course it's a stated part of the deal). And there's no teacher at the front of the room deciding which side has compromised more -- it's the right amount of compromise when both sides have gotten something that they want. Whatever our differences of opinion, though, I'm enjoying the conversation.

That's a great point there. This is why I never go along with the anarchists-posing-as-libertarians crowd. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Bob, this is over the line and inappropriate. Please refrain from putting words directly in people's mouths, or using personal ad hominems like the above. It's unfair and not in the spirit of SFN posting policies. Thanks.

Thanks. We don't disagree by much, you know, and I appreciate the feedback.

Well you're welcome to fear this, but I don't see much point to worrying about slippery slopes when we've had taxation for almost 150 years and the slope hasn't given way. Each new tax is debated and deliberated on its own merits, and always has been. Certainly not every tax makes sense to me, but that's a democracy for you. You win some, you lose some. (shrug) As to a radio tax specifically, I can't really work up any great concern here. There's no great precedent here to be terrified of, and I think most broadcast radio is a bad joke anyway, both in terms of content and in terms of quality. Since even heavily downsampled MP3s maintain the full dynamic range of the original, broadcast will never match local data -- there's just too much pressure to rob dynamic range in order to compress the channel even further and thus add more content streams. Yay, 150 channels of pure drek! Amazing! Wow, I'll buy that new car right now!!!! (And don't even get me started on the garbage that passes for "high definition television". With the one and only exception of Lost, which is almost over, I don't even want to hear about a television program until it comes out on DVD and I can put it in my Netflix queue. I'm just fed up with all broadcasters, cable, satellite, local, all of them.) I'm afraid I'm not going to lose any sleep over an "attack" on the broadcast industry. That's an industry badly in need of being stomped on, and hard. Although I guess the world already has too many hairdressers and telephone sanitizers, so the unemployment rate might go up. Oh well, maybe they can try garbage collection. Now that's an amusing image -- perfectly dressed and coifed news talkers picking up my weekly cans. Sweeeeet. None of that's aimed at you, btw -- I don't mean to suggest that you're defending the broadcast industry, and I'm afraid you happened to catch one of my pet peeves. Also I think you and I would agree that the problem isn't taxation, but rather spending. I think most of this forum disagrees with us (chuckle), but hey, that's what makes life interesting.

Oh no. It's an airplane-on-a-treadmill question. Run for your lives!