Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI just had to get Bon Jovi off the front page.
Is anybody going to be in Boston in a couple of weeks? I fly in on Friday, 3/8, and don’t have to be out to Woods Hole until the next day; where’s a good place to stay/eat? I’ve been through Boston several times now, so know how to use their version of the Metro, but haven’t found a hangout I like yet.
All Things in Moderation 
The usual method around this prohibition is to amend a House bill and send it back.
But my understanding is that this is de novo legislation from the Senate. But, then, I haven’t really been keeping up with it, either.
LikeLike
I guess I’m not going to find out what these traditional but no longer existent Republican behaviors/policies are. That’s too bad. I think it is worth discussing, especially since it seems to be an article of faith on the left that the R’s are somehow drastically different to what they used to be, but there seems to me to be precious little in the way of objective evidence supporting the charge.
LikeLike
Look into the two terms of Ronald Reagan, Scott, and get back to us. Let’s see here. Tax increases, resets with the USSR, and amnesty. Oh my!
∂ß
LikeLike
FB:
Look into the two terms of Ronald Reagan, Scott, and get back to us. Let’s see here. Tax increases
Tax law changes under Reagan were complex, with both cuts, hikes and closing of loopholes, but the headline on Reagan’s legacy is that he lowered, not raised, marginal rates, with the highest rate topping out at 28%. I think it is strange that you think Reagan’s tax policy was to increase rates, and that stands in contrast to today’s Republicans. I’d also point out that today’s Republicans just agreed to a hike a month ago, so even if you think that Reagan was a tax hiker (guffaw), it is difficult to see how that distinguishes him from today’s R’s.
resets with the USSR
Perhaps you could explain this one further. I don’t understand what it is you are trying to distinguish between Reagan and today’s R’s. It can’t be policy posture towards that USSR since the USSR no longer exists.
and amnesty.
Immigration policy is and has always been a mixed bag among Republicans. But in fact Reagan signed the amnesty bill over the objections of most House Republicans, so presenting opposition to amnesty as a break from traditional Republicanism is a difficult, if not impossible, sell.
Finally, I’d point out that Mich claimed that if current R’s behaved more like traditional R’s, much of the current discussion (ie about the “war on science”) would be moot. I don’t see how anything on your list, even if they did represent accurate distinctions between traditional and current Republicans, would have any relevance to a discussion of a “war on science”. But thank you for at least trying to explain what Mich was talking about, which is more than she is obviously willing to do.
LikeLike
Goose – I lived in Boston for 2 1/2 years before becoming a dreaded federal drone. So many great places to go. It is the best place in the US for donuts (avoid Dunkin). Twin Donut in Brighton is great.
Cambridge has some great places. The Harvest in Harvard Square is an amazing restaurant. My wife swears by their burger. Tealuxe is my favorite tea shop in the world. Creme de la Earl Grey is wonderful as are their chai’s. The East Coast Grill & Raw Bar is my favorite restaurant in Boston. The last time I was in Boston, I went there. A friend of the owner had caught a blue fin tuna the day before; I had a killer poke made from it. I met my wife at Mr. Crepe in Davis Square.
Backbay is a terrific place to wander through. Sadly, the Tealuxe there is gone. I was planning to propose there, a plan that was short circuited by circumstances. Kashmir is a terrific Indian restaurant on Newbury.
If you’re in Boston on a Saturday, Haymarket is a great place to go. Fun atmosphere.
I miss Boston. Truly a perfect place for me. DC is good, but Boston had everything I loved about the UK with being back home.
∂ß
LikeLike
It would be strange if I thought Reagan’s tax policy was to increase rates. Well, income tax rates. Social security rose to 7.65% as part of the 1983 law. Then again, the lower income tax rate rose from 11% to 15% in 1986. Shall we say that his was not a perfect record?
Grover Norquist has repeatedly claimed that Reagan and later Bush were snookered by the Democrats, offering tax increases and reneging on them. Google pink unicorn and you’ll get the gist of his claims. Leaving aside the number of Pinnochios he’s been awarded for such claims, it represents a significant rightward shift from Reagan. No tax increases, because Democrats won’t agree to spending cuts.
As for the USSR, Obama has been widely mocked for the reset with Russia. Reagan took a similar tack with the USSR following the accession of Gorbachev. As the Soviet Union was a Russian empire, it is reasonable to draw parallels between the two.
I would disagree with you on the characterization of the Republican stance regarding immigration (though my reference was to Reagan, not House Republicans). I think the shifts of John McCain from 2006 to 2008 were illustrative. Not to mention how Mitt Romney tore apart Perry and Gingrich for suggesting anything but deportation.
Furthermore, it is narrow to focus purely on the two immigration laws. My comment referenced that, but let’s generalize a bit shall we? The number of immigration laws at the state level are a clear shift to the right. I think one of them made it illegal to rent to someone without papers.
I didn’t address the war on science as there were some significant erroneous assumptions in there. I’d prefer to address these in an upcoming science post.
I will offer one example. The AG of Virginia has been engaged on a witch hunt of a former professor of UVa. Said professor wrote grant proposals that were peer reviewed and funded. Cuccinelli wanted to go after the fellow for fraud. Having worked in academia, the typical professor doesn’t have the financial resources to stand up against such a perseciution. Oh, sorry, prosecution. That may not be a war on science, but it is a war on a scientist. Fortunately, the UVa defended its former (did I mention he wasn’t even employed at UVa still?) professor and told the AG to stuff it.
What would stop an anti-evolution AG takes a similar tack with the Biology Department at a university?
∂ß
LikeLike
FB:
It would be strange if I thought Reagan’s tax policy was to increase rates.
Indeed.
Shall we say that his was not a perfect record?
I did say that his record was complex.
it represents a significant rightward shift from Reagan. No tax increases, because Democrats won’t agree to spending cuts.
I don’t see how. In the first place, a demand that tax increases be coupled with spending cuts is simply a political strategy dictated by the circumstances of the immediate problem (the deficit) ostensibly being addressed and the political reality of the day. It is not indicative of some over-arching political philosophy, unless one sees the demand for spending cuts as demonstrating a belief that government itself is too big, which of course was something that Reagan himself believed and was quite outspoken about. Government spending as a percent of GDP is currently almost 2% greater than it averaged under Reagan. I don’t see any reason to think that, if Reagan were faced with the same circumstances we face now, his demands would be any different (in a leftward leaning sense) than what current Republicans are demanding.
Also, Reagan did in fact decrease the average annual growth of government spending by nearly 1.5%, from 3.94% under his predecessor to 2.51%. So Reagan not only lowered tax rates (not perfectly or across the board, I admit), but he also lowered the growth of government spending. How this record can somehow be said to stand to the left of what current Republicans desire is beyond me.
As the Soviet Union was a Russian empire, it is reasonable to draw parallels between the two.
I don’t think it is at all. The US-USSR relations in the context of the Cold War and Reagan’s effort to defeat communism is not in the slightest parallel to current US-Russian relations.
The number of immigration laws at the state level are a clear shift to the right.
Well I thought we were talking about the federal government. If we want to talk about state laws, then we would need to look at state republicans then (when, exactly?) and now, which I am not necessarily in a position to do. I don’t know anything about local republican politics in, say, Arizona during the the 1980s. Perhaps Arizona Republicans have become more radicalized than in the past. Although it is also possible that they have not become more radical in terms of immigration policy, but simply have decided to take on a responsibility that was previously seen to be the job of the federal government which is no longer doing the job properly.
This is actually another problem with the whole “rightward moving Republicans” narrative. It ignores the fact that a lot of Republican policy is actually a reaction against the leftward movement of the Dems. Progressives always seem to think that whatever position they hold at the moment is historically normative, and therefore any opposition to it is indicative of a radical movement away from the norm. Of course the truth is usually the precise opposite.
I didn’t address the war on science as there were some significant erroneous assumptions in there.
Indeed there were….like the assumption that such a war exists as a reality rather than as a convenient political narrative. I look forward to your post.
What would stop an anti-evolution AG takes a similar tack with the Biology Department at a university?
Removing government from being involved in education would stop it. Again, if you insist that the government be involved in education, either by dictating curriculum standards or doling out grant money, then you shouldn’t really complain when education becomes politicized.
LikeLike
As Russia holds the seat of the former USSR on the UN Security Council and possesses most of its nuclear arsenal, we will have to disagree on the parallels.
I would disagree with the notion that there’s a war on science. Cuccinelli, on the other hand, is using the power of his office to threaten individuals who disagree with him politically. UVa told him correctly to shove it.
As for the education argument, I think you’ve neatly gone down the path of reduction to absurdity. I do find the notion that there should be no government involvement in education or research to be absurd. In the Venn diagram of our world views on such matters, the intersection is the null set.
∂ß
LikeLike
FB:
As for the education argument, I think you’ve neatly gone down the path of reduction to absurdity. I do find the notion that there should be no government involvement in education or research to be absurd.
You asked how to do something, and I answered it. Notably you don’t dispute the accuracy of my answer, you just say that it would be absurd to actually do it. What seems absurd to me is to demand that politicians be involved in education and then complain that the education process (again, either in setting curriculum standards or doling out grant money) is somehow politicized.
I’m shocked…shocked!…to find politicking going on in this government!
LikeLike
The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that the AG had no such grounds in the first place. I’m sure that he would (and probabiy will) happily waste the taxpayers’ funds pursuing other personal vendettas. yes, one solution to an extremist abusing his or her office is to to eliminate all such funding. Amputation of the affected limb is a similarly effective solution to a hangnail. That doesn’t make it a good idea.
As for politics of research funding, I am intimately familiar with the process of writing and reviewing grants. There is no such politicking in the process of peer review and competitive awards.
∂ß
LikeLike
FB:
yes, one solution to an extremist abusing his or her office..
Sorry, I thought you were using this as an example of political interference in academia, not simply an abuse of power. If you are asking for simply a pre-emptive way of preventing those in power from ever abusing their power, then there is none. That is the essential dilemma that any government presents. In order for government to perform the task of protecting the rights of citizens, it must be given enough power that it can fairly easily violate those same rights, if it is so inclined.
There is no such politicking in the process of peer review and competitive awards.
In what way is the government involved in the peer review process? (Also, as an aside, I must say that from what you and Mich told me some time ago, coupled with what was revealed by the climategate e-mails, I can’t say I am particularly impressed with it.)
As for competitive awards, I have no idea what the process is, but I find it impossible to believe that any process in which government money is doled out does not involve politics at some level. The very fact that any money is available in the first place is a political decision.
LikeLike
Actually, I’m not asking to prevent abuse of power. I gave an example of what I considered abuse of power. You suggested that a way to prevent such an abuse is to simply end all public funding of education and research. A better way was for the university to stand up to the bully. Successfully, i might note.
What I’m most struck by that old thread is that you came in with preconceived notions of peer review. Following extended discussions with several active research scientists, came out with your opinion utterly unchanged. Either you have remarkable insight into other professions or a remarkably closed mind.
∂ß
LikeLike
FB:
Actually, I’m not asking to prevent abuse of power. I gave an example of what I considered abuse of power.
Yes, and then you asked “What would stop an anti-evolution AG takes a similar tack with the Biology Department at a university?” So if you weren’t asking how to prevent political interference with education, and you weren’t asking how to prevent an abuse of power, then I really don’t understand the purpose of your question.
What I’m most struck by that old thread is that you came in with preconceived notions of peer review. Following extended discussions with several active research scientists, came out with your opinion utterly unchanged.
Actually, I had no preconceived notions at all about the peer review process until I read the Climategate (sorry) e-mails. After reading those, it occurred to me that the process might actually be a lot more manipulable than, and hence not quite the gold standard of legitimacy that, the media had made it appear. And the insights provided by you and Mich simply increased that suspicion.
Either you have remarkable insight into other professions or a remarkably closed mind.
Well, the insights provided by the Climategate e-mails were there for anyone interested to see, so there really wasn’t anything that “remarkable” about it.
LikeLike
Scott,
I think the education discussion is closed out. Your answer appeared to be eliminate government funding of education and research. While that would have eliminated Cuccinelli’s rationale, I stand by my characterization to be that of a cure being worse than the disease. In the case of Virginia, the answer was the UVa legal department and the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia. More generally, protections against political interference are a superior answer.
Regardless as to the war on science narrative, it stands as a specific example of a politician using the power of his office (and my tax dollars) to attack a scientist and his work. A war, no. More like an ambush.
I enjoyed going back through the old thread. One doesn’t try to convince opposing counsel, one tries to convince the judge. Goose and I failed to convince you that the scientists acted in good faith, but you came in prosecuting that particular case. The independent review committees that exonerated the accused scientists are irrelevant to that case. Presumably, more liberal scientists protecting their own.
More generally, I think a discussion framed by these emails were a missed opportunity. All too often, I hear science described as someone has a hypothesis, goes into the lab to prove or disprove it, and then writes up the result. It’s akin to the lab component of a course in biology, chemistry or physics. Boring. Science is a lot more interesting as a career and not just because I get to play with fancy toys or go to cool conferences. Mike, Goose and I are all active scientists in different disciplines with varied experiences.
A little over a year ago, you wrote that scientists haven’t done a good job explaining the process of how one publishes research. The what I do post followed. In a later thread, I asked you about it and you hadn’t gotten to it. But of course. You were making a point to win an argument, not seeking insight.
∂ß
LikeLike
FB:
Your answer appeared to be eliminate government funding of education and research.
Again, I was answering a question which you now say you were not asking.
In the case of Virginia, the answer was the UVa legal department and the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Yes, the separation of powers, which creates a system of checks and balances, is one way in which the abuse of power by government can be limited. But, of course, it cannot eliminate it. If the same political forces capture the various areas of power, then abuses can, have, and will go unchecked.
And, again, I reiterate that it makes no sense to demand that the government be involved in managing a process and then complain when the process becomes politicized.
The independent review committees that exonerated the accused scientists are irrelevant to that case.
An “independent review committee” exonerated OJ Simpson from the charge of killing his wife, too. And that, too, is irrelevant to my personal reading of the publicly available evidence.
A little over a year ago, you wrote that scientists haven’t done a good job explaining the process of how one publishes research. The what I do post followed. In a later thread, I asked you about it and you hadn’t gotten to it. But of course. You were making a point to win an argument, not seeking insight.
A few things on this. First, as far as I can find, I never said that scientists haven’t done a good job explaining the process. The closest to such a thing that I can find was when I said:
BTW, you may be correct that those of us not involved in it have been misled (by scientists themselves, of course) about the significance of the peer-review process.
It wasn’t the process itself that was inadequately explained, but rather the “significance” of it which had been misleadingly explained. That is to say, the impression that had been given to us lay-people, particularly with regard to climate science, by politically active climate scientists, was that peer review was the gold standard of science. If it was peer reviewed, it was “truth”, and if it wasn’t it was junk. As I pointed out then and again yesterday, both the Climategate e-mails and my discussion with you and Mich disabused me of that notion. At the time, you actually seemed to think that was a good thing, saying:
That’s how the process should work. However, scientists are human and grudges develop. We also hang out and drink at conferences. Sometimes, A LOT (after our talks). If your reading of the global warming controversies has enlightened you to this, that’s all for the better. Because, my friend, the same thing happens in field after field.
Second, your magnum opus on publishing a paper came more than 2 months after the thread which ostensibly motivated you to write it, during which time we had moved on to other topics. Given that, and the fact that, as I explained above, what you wrote about was not exactly on the same topic that I had actually raised, it hardly seems fair to indict me as being indifferent to your views of a topic that I had brought up.
Lastly, and perhaps most significantly, you should note that your post had the misfortune of being posted just one day prior to the most epic thread in the history of ATiM, one which had to be carried over into a second post (when the original was deleted in a fit of pique), totaled a combined 428 comments, and had the potential to bring the whole ATiM enterprise to an end (the first of many, as it turns out.) So perhaps you should consider the possibility that I didn’t have much to say about your post not out of an indifference to your sage insights, but rather because just at that moment other things had captured my limited time.
LikeLike
Heh.
http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/02/23/capt-butterfield-to-the-bridge-please/
LikeLike
This should be interesting:
“Major Banks Aid in Payday Loans Banned by States
By JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG
Published: February 23, 2013”
Apparently the “aid” consists of processing authorized ACH transactions for the Payday lenders, just as they do for every other party that utilizes ACH.
The proposed solution should have numerous unforeseen consequences:
“Lawmakers, led by Senator Jeff Merkley, Democrat of Oregon, introduced a bill in July aimed at reining in the lenders, in part, by forcing them to abide by the laws of the state where the borrower lives, rather than where the lender is.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/business/major-banks-aid-in-payday-loans-banned-by-states.html?hp&_r=0
LikeLike
Love this EJ Dionne column!
What would cause the fever to break?
http://m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ej-dionne-in-budget-debate-republicans-are-stalling-obama/2013/02/20/26c298e6-7b8d-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html
LikeLike
Obama’s first executive decision explains home defense.
LikeLike