Pangloss

They're not questioning the constitutionality of reasonably-priced healthcare, they're questioning the constitutionality of forcing people to buy insurance when their lack of taking it is not a risk to others. Don't you Ozonians have a right-to-die law?

Wow, only $5 trillion a year? Peanuts! I wonder whose budget that will come out of? Hm, let me think. Does that include buying and tearing down 150 million American homes and replacing them with apartment buildings? Or was that extra? Because if we assume an average price of $150,000 (probably low), that would be $22.5 trillion right there. Of course, if we're all going to be dead in a few years then what's the point? Here's the quote you were asking me for: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=533157&postcount=181

No, there is no "except". I'm not questioning your reasoning, I'm questioning the purpose of insulting someone's aesthetic opinion. Keep it on that level (as above) and you have no beef with me. (I happen to think the running-out-of-space argument is a load of manure, as exposed by Penn & Teller's Bullsh*t episode on recycling, but I don't have a problem with you arguing it.)

Fair enough. And I know that most high-density housing doesn't look like a slum in East Africa. But I think the aesthetic question is markedly different from the ecological and economic questions. IF we could solve our energy dilemmas tomorrow while keeping suburbia intact, you'd take that, wouldn't you? So let's not confuse the issue. If you want to talk about housing as a function of solving the problem, go for it. But leave people's socio-artistic preferences to themselves, eh?

ABC News ran a piece tonight saying that the health care insurance companies are already reaping a windfall from the hobbled health care bill in the form of stock values, which are way up since November, in some cases as much as 33%. With the loss of the public option and the addition of 30 million new customers subsidized by almost half a trillion dollars in government money it's not hard to see why. (Kinda makes complaints from Democrats about increased spending in Afghanistan look a little silly, doesn't it?)

Teachers These are actual comments made on students' report cards by teachers in the New York City public school system. All teachers were reprimanded (but, boy, are these funny!) 1. Since my last report, your child has reached rock bottom and has started to dig. 2. I would not allow this student to breed. 3. Your child has delusions of adequacy.. 4. Your son is depriving a village somewhere of an idiot. 5.. Your son sets low personal standards and then consistently fails to achieve them. 6. The student has a 'full six-pack' but lacks the plastic thing to hold it all together. 7. This child has been working with glue too much.. 8. When your daughter's IQ reaches 50, she should sell. 9. The gates are down, the lights are flashing, but the train isn't coming. 10. If this student were any more stupid, he'd have to be watered twice a week. 11.. It's impossible to believe the sperm that created this child beat out 1,000,000 others. 12. The wheel is turning but the hamster is definitely dead.

(I'm not sure where this originated from -- it's been floating around the Internet in a bunch of places.) -------- The Economy, How Bad Is It? 1. The economy is so bad... that I got a pre-declined credit card in the mail. 2. The economy is so bad... I ordered a burger at McDonalds and the kid behind the counter asked, "Can you afford fries with that?" 3. The economy is so bad... that CEO's are now playing miniature golf. 4. The economy is so bad... if the bank returns your check marked "Insufficient Funds," you call them and ask if they meant you or them. 5. The economy is so bad... Hot Wheels and Matchbox stocks are trading higher than GM. 6. The economy is so bad... McDonald's is selling the 1/4 ouncer. 7. The economy is so bad... parents in Beverly Hills fired their nannies and learned their children's names. 8. The economy is so bad... a truckload of Americans was caught sneaking into Mexico.... 9. The economy is so bad... Dick Cheney took his stockbroker hunting. 10. The economy is so bad... Motel Six won't leave the light on anymore. 11. The economy is so bad... the Mafia is laying off judges. 12. The economy is so bad... Exxon-Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.

Yup, that's where I want to live. I can't imagine a better way to help society thrive. Hey, if you don't object when POM does it, you can't object when I do the same. Two-way street, folks. Stop ignoring people who use extreme exaggerations but share your general viewpoint. BTW, POM, a couple of pages ago you predicted we'd all be DEAD in a few years. But the last time we talked about this you said you'd moved away from that kind of extreme perspective and into the realm of normalcy. What's up with this sudden shift back to Helter-Skelter land? Are you just angry about this argument?

Sweet, now we have Freedom Cola to go with our Freedom Fries. Our plan for world domination is nearly complete! Average Chinese: 90 pounds x 1.2 billion = 108,000 million pounds American goal: 4x90=360 pounds x 350 million = 126,000 million pounds WE WIN!

I have to say that several of the above posts bugged me as well. Children exist in a WIDE variety of ages and maturity levels, and immediate exposure at the entertainer's whim is not a logical course of action. But that's exactly what's supported when we ridicule parental efforts like controlling media exposure. I have this conversation frequently with my game development students, and being ardent video gamers they invariably enter the discussion from a position of derision and ridicule for parents. I ask them "so if a parent wants to restrict exposure to a rated R movie to their 16 year old, you think this is overcontrolling", and of course they say "yes!!!!". Then I say "what about their 7 year old?" Silence fills the room, because they've completely forgotten that children come in all ages and maturity levels, and suddenly we have the beginnings of a learning experience. Progressives attack parents indirectly like this because they do understand that parenting is important, but they loathe those aspects of parenting that feel conservative and traditional and don't feel sufficiently skeptical and challenging. But this behavior is bad for society because it undermines the ability of parents to do their jobs effectively.

Well regardless of the outcome, I have to praise the discussions here. This is why I follow politics as a hobby. It doesn't get any more interesting than this health care thing.

You mean the legality of being non-insured? That's an interesting question. I don't know much about the rule, though.

It is rather stunning that we could actually end up with health care reform that does nothing about the tens of millions of people without health care except to declare them to be breaking the law. The situation is analogous to Democrats putting forth a plan that closes the border and then gives all current illegal immigrants citizenship, and then removing the citizenship part just before passage "just so we can have some kind of reform". Even more bizarre is the fact that Democrats will then have to *sell* this as both beneficial and progressive in order to capitalize on it in next year's election. It'd be practically writing the GOP's recovery strategy for it. And the short deadline they're forcing on the situation -- completely artificially -- may actually be contributing to the lack of recognition for what they're about to do (e.g. refusing Lieberman a few moments to finish speaking today, ostensibly because of the overwhelming need for speed). All in all a very strange state of affairs.

They probably should scrap it, because I think that if this bill fails to reform health care it's going to cost Democrats every bit as much as scrapping it would. But there's no point in starting over, because they're not going to bring conservative/moderate/centrist Democrats on board. They just are not. This is not a Joseph Lieberman problem, it's a failure to recognize that 2008 was not a mandate for the enactment of a progressive agenda. The fact that they're unwilling to scrap it suggests another bad choice by the Obama administration. They need to step back and build up a string of victories and then use that to leverage a real health care reform bill. Which reminds me -- I want to go on record that I think we will see Pelosi and/or Reid to lose their leadership roles in 2010.

The release of a Pew Research study on cellphone sex-texting by teens produced an eye-opening variety of responses from the media. A quick glance at these two widely diverging interpretations from two computer news magazines seems to bracket the range of responses pretty well: PCWorld: Sexting Study Finds Few Teens Participate CNet: 'Sexting' common among teens, survey says Other outlets tried to take a more objective view, such as this article at National Public Radio: Study: 15 Percent Of Teens With Cells Receive 'Sexts' And then of course there's MSNBC, nit-picking the data to find the most potentially terrifying numbers for parents: Nearly 1 in 3 older teens gets 'sexting' messages Nice! It's funny to watch this sort of thing in action sometimes. I don't know that there's anything particularly surprising or revealing about this example, but I think it illustrates the simple fact that news is a business. What do you all think?

It's certainly possible I've read too much into it' date=' and it sounds like we largely agree. I don't have a problem with using TARP funds for TARP purposes. I only have a problem with it being reallocated and distributed into new spending programs that serve different purposes. In answer to your question, here's an article in the LA Times from less than a week ago that, although similar to the ABC piece, seems to interpret the jobs angle differently: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2009/12/obama-weighs-use-of-tarp-funds-for-deficit-jobs.html But I do understand that jobs are often a secondary effect of different kinds of programs. That's the problem with politicians -- you're damned if you read too much into what they say, and you're damned if you don't. This morning on "This Week" Larry Summers was pushing a new administration's line that the recovery (and jobs) will be in full recovery by spring. At the very least, they're no longer lowering expectations and talking about a long-term recovery. It seems unlikely that they'll be able to talk that way and still go after the TARP money for a direct jobs bill, so perhaps this is moot, or will strictly stay in the banking realm you discuss above.

(Should I start a separate thread on TARP reallocation? Opinions?) No, it's not. TARP was not that loosely defined -- it was a very specific piece of legislation aimed at guaranteeing assets, NOT funding new businesses and creating jobs. TARP was borrowed money, and part of how the idea was sold to the American public was the basis that it would be repaid. This has been successful. Why undermine that success just to top off a tank that hasn't even come close to the halfway point yet? (There hasn't even been any suggestion that the rate of stimulus spending could be improved, but by golly we need that tank to return to 100%. Why?) This weekend Congress is passing a $1.1 trillion "spending bill". Under your reasoning, after it is signed by the President Congress could then change its mind and spend that money on green energy startups and housing projects for the poor. It's still "spending", right? Isn't that the purpose of the "spending" bill, to spend money? And what better way to spend money than on these things which create more jobs and thus stimulate the economy! Win-win! Of course every government agency would immediately become unable to pay its employees, but that's okay, we'll just pass another $1.1 trillion "spending bill", and then I guess we'll cross our fingers and hope that it doesn't get redirected for some other ideological purpose. At some point you gotta wonder if there's any point in having a budget at all. Why bother if any spending is subject to political whim of current leadership after it is approved by the democratic process of government? Also, changing the meaning of legislation after it is passed just to avoid political difficulties further undermines the people's faith in government, and for good reason. We do not put people in office for the purpose of lying to 50% of the country and winking to the other 50% as they do so. This is not an ideological game, and it's not about tricking half the country into a better tomorrow. A democratic government should do exactly what it says it's going to do. No less, and no more. This is a key principle in all democratic governments, and it should not be thrown out by half of the country when their favored party comes to power.

Oh I'm not calling for a stop to spending stimulus money, just that we not reallocate TARP and add it to the pile. I agree that halting stimulus spending would be a bad idea at this point, even if we are coming out of recession. I'd like to see them get more creative and responsive to the changing situation with the remaining stimulus funds, but we might as well spend it. In for a penny, in for a pound. I might support re-allocating TARP if there were a full debate in Congress over it. I'm a big believer in hashing things out and then accepting a democratically-arrived-at decision, whatever it is.

Just to clarify I wasn't talking about deleted data, I was talking about collected data that exists at places like NASA and NOAA but hasn't made available to scientists who want to work on it. I should say, however, that I have no other info on this, and what I posted was someone else's claim. Perhaps it's not true that FOA requests have been denied, or that NASA, NOAA and NCSC have withheld their data from internal and external scientists. I think this ivory tower approach is wrong and creates an atmosphere of elitism and separation from the public, but again just to clarify the link I posted earlier was, at least in part, talking about scientists unable to access data.

That's a good point -- it is going to take a while to bring unemployment back down to where it was. But why is "where it was" the correct measure for a federally-funded jobs program? And wasn't the left already complaining about underemployment when it was at that point? So when we get to that mark aren't they just going to calmly explain to us that emergency federal intervention is still necessary? I guess if there were some sort of rubric or formula for determining that this kind of intervention is necessary, or at least a specific, stated goal and an "exit strategy" for the program I might go along with it.

Which is why it needs to be available for testing. All of it. All the time.

Interesting idea. Google makes a kind of subject-oriented page whenever there's a major story, and you can visit that page for updates. So you go to the "Tiger Woods Infidelity Scandal" (my label) page and then follow updates from there. You don't have to scour the Google News front page for updates, or wait for email updates. They've got some pretty clever ideas going on on these pages, including summaries and timelines showing when each aspect of the story appeared in the media. Unfortunately all of the entries (and in fact all of the stories on the page) come from the same source, which is a sponsor for the page. (So far it's just the New York Times and the Washington Post, and one article I read speculated that Fox News' exclusion is deliberate and a snub based on the recent flap over Fox and Microsoft teaming up to try and charge Google for stories.) I think Google may be shooting itself in the foot with this one. Because it's single-source, any news agency, especially one with a sophisticated web site (say, Fox News?) could pick up this idea and run with it themselves and have exactly the same feature set as Google's pages, plus full control over the content. I'm completely at a loss as to why Google would restrict this to single sources like that -- it defeats the whole purpose of aggregated news search. But hey, what do I know. This YouTube video explains the system pretty well. 1ZhCY9FF608

I wonder sometimes if the simplest path to a complete overhaul of the insurance industry and a return to a logical, capitalist system of health care would be to immediately adopt single-payer health care ala Canada or France.

So we don't need the data because the denialists don't have any of their own? That's not science, that's two wrongs making a right. Just because absolute denialists have no science doesn't mean that pro-GW advocates get to use a lower standard. That they should reveal their data is a no-brainer. What the denialists think is irrelevant. Also there's a conflation of skeptical motivations contained in that declaration that I think is dangerous and detrimental. I don't think beating global warming will involve conflating honest skeptics with die-hard denialists. I will admit that it's not particularly fair -- we're essentially asking pro-GW advocates to hold themselves to a higher standard than what might normally be accepted without non-scientific controversies. But I don't see that as a bad thing, I see it as a GOOD thing. I think it's perfectly valid and reasonable for emotional and unscientific drama and skepticism to force science to raise its standards. Why not? Beating objections based on human drama is just as important as figuring out the solution to any other variable. And we SHOULDN'T advocate major upheavals to our entire way of life without the absolute highest possible degree of scientific rigor.

But why do TARP funds have to be spent for that purpose when, as you say, 75% of the other stimulus money hasn't even been spent? I think the point is moot anyway, because I disagree with you that we need it. The recession is over and jobs are a lagging economic indicator. In fact the November figures suggest that the corner has already been turned on jobs, with a tiny loss and a decrease in the unemployment percentage. It could be a blip on the radar, but it may not be, and even before those numbers came out some were predicting that jobs would be back on a growth footing by the spring because of the spike in non-retail temporary workers and other signs. In short, we probably don't need it.