Pangloss

Surely Giuliani meant after 9/11. This is a commonly-reported meme, to say that there were no further attacks under the Bush administration. I realize this ignores Richard Reid, the shoe-bomber, but given that the Reid incident came just a few months after 9/11 I think there is a legitimate question here -- have the systems improved, and if not, why not? This should not be a political question and the fact that it is is disappointing. Regarding the political question of whether we're safer or less safe under Obama, I think it's a bunch of hooey.

We already have legal immigration and a path to citizenship. In my opinion, lumping legals in with illegals in order to make opponents look like bigots and calling them names like "teabaggers" is not a good way to get everyone talking at the same table. That aside, I see two questions: In terms of the illegals already here, the question is not whether legalizing them would improve the economy -- this is a generally-acknowledged point. The question is whether legalizing them would open a floodgate that we're not prepared to deal with. In terms of increasing the rate of legal immigration (as proposed by the study, which does agree with limits), the same question applies -- can we handle an increased rate? Given that we've seen examples of problems caused by ideologically-increased immigration rates (e.g. France), I believe this question should not be answered ideologically, and the projected economic growth shown in this report does not address the key concerns.

Good idea, I'll sticky this. Excellent series on Game Theory with Yale's Ben Polak: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=6EF60E1027E1A10B

Melanie, I think your post was placed in moderated status because of the mention of Nat Geo channel, but it's visible to everyone now. Sorry about that.

He didn't.

I've always thought that the best part of the Good Samaritan parable is the lawyer challenging Jesus who the "neighbors" are. It just has a whole "Hah! Answer THAT!" feel to it.

How do you find out what a journal's impact factor is?

Actually I think the Wikipedia itself carries a "naughties" born-on date, and I think that may be one of the most revolutionary inventions on the list so far. Good call.

Cool idea. I approve of your choices 100%. Let me see if I can add a few. - Smartphones - E-books - Video games (becoming a bigger industry than movies) Edit: Adding a couple more: - YouTube - iPod

Also, it had better be really, really fast, not just to deal with the pain issue but also to deal with potential incongruities. "The detectives tell me I shot the man just before I beamed up, but it must have been after I began disassembly, because I don't remember it at all."

Okay, I don't mind waiting however long it takes if they tell me they're going to run it. That's cool. It sounds like the whole "getting published" situation is not as bad as I feared. When you're asked to review a paper, do you get anything out of that exercise? Pay? Editorial credit? Maybe a new item for your CV, at least? My faculty advisor is not a co-author; I suspect her reluctance to discuss this further might have been due to the fact that she's an editor herself. But she was really helpful with criticisms of my paper from her perspective as an editor, so I'm not complaining. Sometimes in person I give people an impression of over-eagerness and high motivation. It's worked well for me over the years in the business world, but I've suspected for a while now that in the more relaxed world of academia it may sometimes be an impediment. I look around at my fellow undergrad faculty (almost none of whom have PhDs, and only a couple of whom are even in programs), and I note that in the 3.5 years I've been employed there only one has been published, and that was just a casual magazine feature. The private, for-profit sector is very different that way, and I am eager to complete my PhD and transition to a non-profit environment. Getting published is one of the criteria I posed to myself of judging whether I'm going to be able to do that, given my general lack of academic background. My degrees are not prestigious, but I'm hoping that a combination of publications, a strong dissertation, and solid work experience will make me look good to some program chair somewhere.

White guilt fantasy is a good name for it. It's certainly a common theme these days. That was interesting how he saw it as just another way for white people to make the story about them.

Based on the ACLU's objections, I'm assuming that when you enter one of these scanners a pole drops from the ceiling, flashing lights come on, erotic music is played over loudspeakers, everyone in the immediate area is served with shots of tequila, and every video monitor in the airport is immediately tuned to the operator's viewscreen. And of course all scans are also recorded and distributed via the TSA's new YouTube channel, and whomever is judged "best" in a weekly poll gets to be a contestant on "America's Next Top Airport Scanner Model".

I really appreciate all this feedback. If that's the case with copyright (and that makes sense), it raises a couple of questions in my mind: 1) Do Journals always tell you if they're not going to print your work? 2) If they just leave you twisting in the wind, how long should you wait before you submit your work to another journal? Mokele's timeline (which was really interesting, thank you!) suggests that it could be a really long time before I know anything. Is this normal? It doesn't really seem fair. I only have the one paper here, and I really want to get it published somewhere if I can. (I know I'm being ridiculously naive about this, but I'm a plunge-in-with-both-feet kind of guy.)

Is it a bad idea to send your paper to every journal on the planet, hoping one of them will accept it? If so, why? Also, my teachers seem strangely reluctant to discuss the subject of getting published, and yet my school actively encourages PhD students to get published. There seems to be a disconnect here and maybe a social dynamic here that I'm not being "let in" on. Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated. I submitted my first paper ever to a journal this week, and I'm finding the whole process a bit mystifying. I'm not even sure what happens if by some miracle the journal says "yes", or how likely that really is.

Sounds like malware to me. Also, your links have been removed from your post and if you post any again I'm afraid you'll be banned. Thanks.

I actually liked Apocalypto, FWIW. But then I liked his Passion movie as well, so what do I know. A friend of mine cited Disney's Pocahontas, right down to details like the native chick walking the American soldier (explorer) through the woods touching plants that light up (or something).

Wait, the opposition party is holding up key federal appointments, and calling for resignations at the first sign of trouble?? What is this, the 2000s?!

I know a certain somebody who needs to paste his Facebook rant into this thread. I'm ready to rant about self-loathing liberals again but I need some cover cuz I'm still smarting after our WALL-E discussion a couple years ago! (lol)

I apologize for misreading the Court's vote, but as the article states, they were unanimous in their approval of the use of voter ID: As you say I think we largely agree, but just as you don't think the false registrations are a serious problem, I don't see disenfranchisement due to the use of IDs as a serious problem. The way I read the situation, anybody who's serious about exercising their franchise will absolutely be counted. Er, unless... <quick glance at Wikipedia> (whew, Katherine Harris is still retired)... yes, everyone's vote will be counted! (nervous laugh) I hope you're right. I know you're unhappy about this whole ACORN discussion, but I just want to point out that this has been productive, at least for me, clarifying important points about process and suggesting I need to change my perspective based on Sherlock and bascule's points about separation of responsibility. That's what good discussions are for, right? It wasn't THAT bad, was it?

Okay, but most young first-time voters have ID.

Well I'm sorry you're disgusted, but I meant what I said -- the integrity of the vote is more important than ANY citizen's right to vote. And apparently the Supreme Court agrees with me, saying that it is not unconstitutional to deny a citizen the right to vote if they cannot show an ID. That decision was unanimous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board According to that article, and I believe this is true in my state as well (at least since the 2000 fiasco), homeless people (et al) can cast "provisional ballots" that will be counted if they can jump through various red tape identification hoops (signed affidavits or whatnot) within some sort of time frame. That's fine. I can understand how temporary situations can arise that might mean that you miss a registration deadline because you have no ID, but will have ID by the time the election comes around -- that happened to me back in 1996 when I had just moved to Florida but had to jump through hoops in order to vote in the election that fall. But if I hadn't been able to vote that November -- so what? I knew I'd be able to vote in 1998. It's not as if I were permanently disenfranchised.

Given the placement of that explosive, I've been wondering if this particular terrorist even has a "package" anymore. Reading between today's headlines, I think Obama may be about to throw Napolitano under the bus. Two days ago she said that there was nothing that should have put this suspect's name on a no-fly list, but the president today was withering in his rebuke of the system's failure to stop this guy. They may still try to spin this as a pre-existing condition (unlike health insurance companies, politicians can still turn those away!), and that could save Napolitano's job.

If that's all it is then perhaps it's okay, but this is not the general impression I've been getting (and I don't watch Fox News). If they're just collecting registration forms, then why do they need taxpayer money? And you say that it's okay that they're liberal because there are "probably" conservative groups doing the same thing, then why do they purport to be non-partisan and only interested in registering voters? Should it be one thing or the other? There may be no fire behind the smoke, but I'm curious why we need to tolerate the smoke at all. Why is it necessary to have this much doubt about the voter registration roles? What is it that we've purchased with this uncertainty? The right for a few homeless people to vote? That doesn't seem nearly as important as having the roster be above reproach.

Says who? Wouldn't it be illegal for my local city clerk to register me to vote without proper ID? That requirement is state law. And if that's illegal, why isn't it illegal for ACORN to do the same thing? (Edit: This may be answered, see below.) They should not have registered anyone who failed to show ID. They should not have registered Mickey Mouse without a damn good ID, and if Mickey Mouse insisted that that was his real name and had an ID then they should have put him in a second pile for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to verify the ID. Is this really rocket science? Seriously? What I think is that circumstantial allegations and the appearance of impropriety is more than sufficient to tell us to stop outsourcing voter registration. It's not as if it's hard to register to vote, and if people are too lazy to do it, fine. We don't need political groups running around plumping the rolls with people whose only real concern is how quickly they can politely shut the front door. Also I'm not at all convinced that there are legions of people out there who want nothing more than to encourage all citizens to participate in the democratic process. I don't buy it. It's a free lunch, and TANSTAAFL. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedI just looked at Colorado and Pennsylvania's voter registration pages. Colorado's has a lot of stuff about ID but then it states in fine print that if you have no ID you will be issued a unique number (required to vote) and you'll still be registered. Pennsylvania's page seems to be mute on the issue, just saying if you don't have ID check a box; I assume it's the same deal, and that may ultimately be the case in Florida as well -- if you can't prove your identity you still get registered. Perhaps that applies to in-person registrations as well -- if you can't show ID to the city clerk perhaps you do get registered and given that same kind of unique number. I guess that makes sense because you still have to show ID in order to actually vote. But again this is predicated on the notion that you won't have legions of ideological groups out there signing up Mickey Mouse. So your error rate goes from something trivial to something significant and influential. It's not hard to see the left-wing thinking on this, either. They're tired of red-staters deciding things. Why not seek every way possible to render the opinion of the majority moot? Isn't that necessary in order to save the planet, etc?