Pangloss

On this subject, I think the blame issue relates to the terrorist watch list. I guess it makes sense that security officials check watch lists for destination countries before boarding. There was a side story yesterday about this same passenger (the bomber) being denied boarding onto a flight to the UK because he was on their watch list.

I wondered about this as well, but apparently this is a major policy position by the ACLU, who feels that "naked body" scanners go too far. I don't get it myself -- who cares if some person behind a screen sees you naked? It's not as if they know you, and if they're some deviant who's going to sneak a snapshot and distribute it on the Internet then they're no doubt breaking several laws and employer rules already. But I guess their feeling is that it's a form of privacy, and I think that's a good example of how special interest groups think in absolute terms. Wow that's devious! But it would probably be reported on the news pretty quickly and the gig would be up.

Sure, bascule, if somebody shows up with an actual picture ID indicating that their name is Mickey Mouse, then yes they would have to register them, just like the clerk at city hall would have to do. Sure, bascule, they have to register Mickey Mouse. Sure. Get real, please. If the incidents of Mickey Mouse appearing on ACORN rolls is substantially higher than that of city hall's normal records, then serious questions need to continue to be asked. I want to know if that's the case, and I also want to know what the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is amongst ACORN registrations. Today it's ACORN. What if Sarah Palin gets elected in 2012 and Focus on the Family steps up to do the same thing? That is what American politics has become.

The ire in the political angle on this story has been surprising to me. Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post today compared Janet Napolitano's appearance on a Sunday talk show with Bush's "you're doing a heck of a job Brownie" comment after Hurricane Katrina. (ouch) Of course much of the criticism applies to practices that were operational well before the current administration took office (or the current party took majority power), but ABC News was reporting tonight that Democrats in Congress stopped the distribution of body scanners last year because of concern over privacy rights. However, I haven't found any confirmation of this yet and most of the stories I've seen seem to be saying that it's a matter of cost and that either 6 or 19 airports (depending on the source) have actually received scanners, which would seem contrary to ABC's story. But any way you cut it I don't know how a full-body scanner in Detroit is supposed to catch PETN in the underwear of a man boarding an airplane in the Middle East. That would have to be one heck of a scanner! I did find one story (forgot to save the link, sorry) that said that the European Union slowed plans to distribute these scanners over privacy concerns.

Does the fact that the fake voters didn't actually vote mean no crime was committed? That could be. I'm less concerned now about the chance of inaccurate voting, but just as concerned about gerrymandering. I'm not too worried about Mickey Mouse standing in line to vote, but the fact that he's a registered Democrat does not sit well with me, and it shouldn't sit well with you either. Unless of course you're ready to accept Jesus Christ as a registered Republican. I'm no fan of demagoguery, but I'm not convinced that some degree of outrage isn't warranted. Whether it's some tree-hugger looking for revenge or a state election official seeking higher office, nobody should be allowed to screw around with voter registration records. Not ever.

As far as I know that's not in dispute. The report pertains to the question of whether voters "Mickey Mouse", "Obama '08", or "Bush Sucks" turned up to pull the lever.

Please post introduction/welcome messages in the introduction thread. Thanks. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6215

I'm reading Shogun by James Clavell. Next up on my list is the new Stephen King, Under the Dome. I like to try to do some fiction/entertainment reading this time of year. I'm definitely checking out that Google book, though -- just sent myself the first chapter via Kindle. I do all my reading on Kindle (for iPhone) now. Amazon apparently sold more Kindle books on Christmas Day than real books. That's partly due to people who were opening new Kindles that morning, of course, but I think it's a sign of the times. The Washington Post ran an interesting story today about a big battle in the publishing industry taking place over e-books, and it suggests that publishers are really just getting in the way and not providing either authors or readers with any value. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/24/AR2009122403326.html Apple's upcoming tablet may boost this kind of reading even further, especially if it runs iPhone apps out of the box.

That is not the only difference between Canada and the US. Canada also bargains for its drug purchases as a unit, with the underlying premise of that bargaining being "pay this price or you won't get to sell your product in this country". This seems like a larger impact on price to me than litigation caps.

The aviation industry seems to be almost universally of the same opinion as most of those expressed above. I follow a number of aircraft and aviation sources, including a mailing list with airline and military pilots and aviation writers going back over 15 years, and those guys pretty much to the man/woman think TSA is a very bad joke. But I think these criticisms sometimes miss two key points, which I recently hashed out with a correspondent at Aviation Week who's an old friend: 1) There's nothing you can really do to fix the bigger problems without cutting severely into freedom, and if you do that you may simply shift the danger elsewhere. (How many people died on US highways in 2009?) 2) Given the way human beings and the media work, is it really conceivable that any democratic government could choose to do nothing and just say "sorry, there's nothing really effective we can do"? One interesting unexpected consequence of the formation of TSA that I think illustrates this point is the frequent story about lax screeners, e.g. screeners "sleeping on the job", etc. These stories used to be the purview of local news services, and we never heard anything about it on the national level unless it was really bad. But now every incident is viewed through a different filter -- the reporter has to ask whether this is a problem in Washington. They're not wrong to ask that question, but it has the effect of lowering our overall opinion of the entire service even though the problem may be local. Maybe the story of TSA isn't so much a reflection on government as it is a reflection on society.

The gist of the report is that ACORN registered fictitious voters who, unsurprisingly, didn't show up at the polls. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what the local prosecutor is actually quoted as saying in the original Fox News story you cited. Unfortunately what I've learned over time is that the web site is not nearly as sensationalist as the TV channel. You lose all the dramatic tone and inflection and harried questioning of "Fox News Analysts". Oh well. If we dig around a bit we can probably find something really dramatic from when that story was big news -- maybe a clip from The Daily Show. I think we all agree you're right about FNC sensationalism, though. At any rate, the report is useful but it only regards one small aspect of the story. It's too bad the CRS didn't send undercover videographers without ideological agendas to repeat the previous experiment by right-wingers hoping to catch ACORN in the act (and apparently succeeding).

For what it's worth, I firmly believe that all good science fiction stories are allowed one good break, or set of generally-related breaks with reality, and the author can do anything they want with that so long as they are utterly consistent on that one break. You want FTL communication, fine, just don't tell me later that your whiztalker can, oh by the way, beam the hero up from an about-to-be-destroyed planet. I know a deus ex machina when I see one, and I also know an early setup when I see one ("don't push that button, we haven't figured out what it does yet"!). Just on the remote chance that you're interested (grin), Space:1999 was a late-1970s SF show starring Martin Landau (fresh from Mission:Impossible) as the commander of a permanent base on the moon. Their job is storing Earth's spent nuclear fuel which explodes in the first episode catapulting the moon out of Earth's orbit and into the heavens (quick, how many objections did you come up with?). Each episode involves the wayward moon arriving in a new solar system (wow!) and encountering aliens in rubber suits, black holes, etc -- the usual suspects. Basically Star Trek, right down to the red shirts and phasers, with the amusing twist of the "ship" continuing on its merry way by the end of the episode whether they got back to it on time or not.

Did you watch Space: 1999 as a child? I always wondered if a detonation of a nuclear waste facility was enough energy to actually get the moon going like that. Of course that show had little scientific merit regardless, but the fine looking women and scary rubber-suit monsters more than made up for it. I got to thinking in reading this thread that if getting to a distant destination is the goal, and you have the resources to move a planet, you might want to consider moving the entire solar system instead. It pretty much eliminates the problem of solar dependence. From a purely literary standpoint you gotta love the idea of "taking home with you on the road". This also reminds me of Larry Niven's Puppeteers, with their "Fleet of Worlds". He's been co-authoring new books in that setting. That's the one where their world got so hot from the trillions of inhabitants that it couldn't be left in orbit lest it overheat (hmm). (I think the Ringworld could also be moved by firing up that solar laser, couldn't it? Something gleaned from one of the later books, if memory serves.) But I can't think of any examples of "the adventures of the traveling human race", per se. I can see some good dramatic angles there -- you could run some interesting twists on the old "first contact" scenarios (e.g. aliens land in Central Park, but we actually came to them).

POM, I'm not going to argue our system with you in the midst of this thread. If you want to discuss it any further you know where to reach me.

That's absolutely right, and I'll say it right now: I respect your opinion on this matter, probably a lot more than you realize, as I have tried to tell you in the past. But if you want to start a thread on New Urbanism and extoll its virtues with supporting evidence, please go right ahead. Some will disagree with your conclusions, but that's okay. You are absolutely right in pointing out that those with evidence are more likely to be believed than those without any. But that's the end of it -- we can't force people to change their minds, and we won't berate them when they fail to do so. Thanks for understanding.

Nope, it's an opinion, and it's allowed, respected (or else), and in fact encouraged on this subforum. Unless it's directed at a member of this forum as an attack. Also, while we're on the subject, I reject the skewed and manipulative use of the phrase "ad hominem" (at several points in this thread) to somehow equate attacks on members of this forum with politically incorrect opinions on world events that are not aimed at any member of this forum. It's a poor excuse for reasoning, I'm tired of seeing it around here, and I will simply not tolerate your effort to marginalize dissent and ridicule it. Not while I have something to say about it.

I disagree, there was some annoyance in my last post, I admit, but my point was definitely relevant. This is the Politics sub board and the intersection of science and politics as it pertains to Climategate is absolutely on point. I started this thread, so damned right it's on point. You pulled all the stops out to unload on me the moment I showed up, and you promptly shifted your vicious ad homs from DH to me. I've no idea what's gotten into you or why you're dragging yourself into the mud like this. I don't excuse any ad homs DH may have perpetrated on his own, but even if he did two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm hardly the only one who's noticed this change in your behavior. But hey, far be it from me to stand in your way. Here, let me give you a hand with your attempt to reach Peak Post Count by showing some examples of your ad homs towards DH and myself just from the last few pages.

Quite right, and I think the reason it keeps happening is that this is a common problem amongst many GCC advocates. That sidebar about getting people out of suburbia and into high-density housing is another example. Everything is lumped together in a grand scheme of reshaping society whatever the cost, and if you question them on any one issue you are assumed to oppose all of them (and an idiot, eat a facepalm ). Politically speaking, I think this is revealing and significant. I think it substitutes for logic in some people's minds, and it serves as a means to an end for others. This is an incorrect recollection of my position on these issues.

Thanks for the Times link. On another note, today's procedural vote, the last Senate vote on health care, was on the constitutionality question. Essentially they voted on whether or not it was constitutional. The vote was 60-39 (one Republican absent, I assume). It's significant that the question was asked of the lawyers in the legislative branch, given that it may end up being asked of the lawyers in the judicial branch, who will obviously not use a partisan vote to determine the answer. National Public Radio calls the question "iffy" and suggests possible overturning by the Supreme Court, but they also mention possible avenues of justification in Article 1 and in the Commerce Clause. They have an interesting write-up of the different perspectives and answers to some common questions in this area: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2009/12/is_forcing_people_to_have_heal.html

Yes, that's what you said when we first met six years ago, but I'm still waiting with my bib on and my fork and knife ready to go.

That kind of claim really bugs me, that CBO prediction that the impact on the deficit will decrease over time. They make it sound like health care is going to pay for Iraq or something. Never mind the extra TRILLIONS we spent this year because we couldn't keep our hands out of the cookie jar. Congress just donned its Santa hat with the last spending bill and bought a bunch of Christmas presents for its constituents, but in touting that CBO report they're basically promising (Scout's honor!) not to buy as many presents next year. It's also reminiscent of the post-Clinton discussions about spending the surplus, or the recent debate over re-routing the TARP money. But be that as it may, I do understand that the CBO is saying that the program recovers its initial expenses over time and pushes the red/black line back the other way. It's nice to see SOMEONE FINALLY pushing the line in the correct direction! But that's not actual cost-cutting, it's just getting everyone on the same bureaucratic page. More preventative care and streamlining a few IT processes doesn't mean paying less for drugs and surgery. We are, in the end, simply paying the insurance companies whatever they ask for their services. Without competition or enforced payment schedules (by either regulation or socialization), they can charge whatever they like, and we'll continue to pay it. Insurance companies aren't in the business of helping America with its deficit. They won't lower costs over time, they'll raise them. They have no reason not to, because there is no competition or regulatory pressure forcing them to. Add to that the cost of new technologies and drugs as they appear over time, and you have even more upward pressure. That having been said I'm keeping an open mind and watching how things go. I would love nothing more than to be wrong about all of this and have it work out beautifully.

(Edit: I cross posted this with iNow, but it was written to npts2020.) Well they'll be subsidized, which will be paid for by a half-trillion-dollar tax increase. Which I guess means we're all going to have to pay an additional $1,667 to our health insurance companies to cover that tax increase, which will be levied on those companies. Pretty funny, actually -- that may be the heart of the insurance industry's current grumblings, just the fact that they're going to take the blame for that price increase. But the hope is that that additional expense will result in a vast reduction in indigent care, which is much less efficient because it takes place only on an emergency basis, instead of before you get sick, and at high ER costs, e.g. a box of Kleenex costing $25 instead of $1.25. But in my opinion none of this does enough to address the underlying problem of an insufficiently regulated insurance industry. Sure they've added some regulation to stop them from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, but how about regulation opening their books and forcing them to use the federal standard for all companies known as GAAP -- Generally-Accepted Accounting Principles, instead of the insurance industry's unique SAP -- Statutory Accounting Principles -- which vary by state and are largely at the whim of the reporting company, and are used primarily for industry health determination, not regulation of practices? How about regulation forcing them to adhere to every single monitoring and regulatory practice that ANY OTHER corporation has to adhere to? These possibilities for reform have gone largely ignored because the insurance lobby is so powerful. And so the result will be that this "reform" will mean "solving a problem" by printing more money and giving it to the insurance industry, just like we did in 2003 with the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit, instead of actually fixing the problem by overhauling the insurance industry itself and regulating its practices appropriately.

To POM: "Afford" is a matter of opinion. The reality is that Congress is not going to be able to submit another trillion dollar expense in the current political environment. Even if such a thing were possible, I don't think you are taking into consideration the vast impact it would have on the daily lives of human beings who don't share your pessimism. And if you don't think that matters, watch what happens when people of lower economic status begin to pay the toll for your ideological expectations. The media won't LET them suffer, and you will be to blame, not some vast conspiracy of oil.

Wups, my mistake, thank you. I definitely agree with your point that my stipulation doesn't work when you consider indigent care, and I think that's an excellent answer to bascule's question from the other thread regarding justification for the enforcement of the purchasing of insurance. Nice job on that.

(shrug) Okay' date=' let's assume that we only have to pay our proportional share. The US economy is generally estimated at around $15 trillion (corrected, thanks iNow), so that's basically 20% of the total. Call it an even (gulp) $1 TRILLION dollars added to our $3 trillion annnual budget. This at a time when we're already spending a couple trillion a year over the budget. And it won't be split up that way. We'd be forced by international consensus to pay a higher percentage than that. After all, somebody's forcing all the glaciers in South America to melt, right? Can't be the Brazilians chopping down the rain forests, it's gotta be the big baddie deep-pockets US. Even if you spread it out over 30 years ("only" $667 billion a year! What a bargain!) we can't afford that plan, or anything even remotely like it. I didn't assume anything -- I asked you that very question. If you're saying it should be handled over time via gradually-manipulated market forces, I'm glad to hear it.