|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 17 2014 03:21 Nyxisto wrote: The one guy had a fan below the lectern and so the scary bald guy didn't want to debate him, I don't actually know why and I'm not sure I understand how Florida works I guess it is very hot standing in a suit with those lights pointing at you. Visibly sweating during a debate is undesirable because it tends to put voters off. Saying somebody was sweating portrays them negatively because of some of the connotations of "sweating", for example; it may make a voter believe the person sweating is nervous or dishonest or guilty.
Anyway, Charlie Crist broke the rules of the debate before the debate even started and then used Rick Scott's absence as a way to promote himself (by implying that Scott did not care about the issues.) I have a lot of sympathy for Scott in this case. You can argue that Scott is silly for almost stopping a debate over a fan, but it was important enough for Crist that he was willing to break the rules of the debate in order to have the fan there. The blame for that incident lies with Crist, not Scott.
Tbh, if I were scheduled to have a debate with somebody and we had agreed a set of rules for the debate but then my opponent broke those rules before the debate even started then I would feel the same way as Scott, because I would not trust my opponent to debate honestly and I would not want to partake in the debate.
There is the further discussion about why the condition about the fan/electronic devices was part of the rules in the first place. If it was to prevent a candidate taking up a tablet pc or smart-phone so their advisers could pass along answers/facts during the debate then the fan isn't important. If fans were meant to be forbidden then, yeah, it is a big deal that Crist broke that rule, although I would still be curious why fans were banned.
|
How much do you know about Scott's record as Florida's governor?
|
On October 17 2014 22:16 farvacola wrote: How much do you know about Scott's record as Florida's governor? Nothing. I was only commenting on that one debate in isolation. I don't see why his record as governor would allow his opponent to break debate rules though. There is a strong possibility Scott was looking for any excuse to avoid the debate, in which case Crist was fairly dumb for breaking the rules thereby giving Scott an excuse.
|
President Barack Obama is naming Ron Klain, a former chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, as the point man for the U.S. government's response to the Ebola crisis, amid criticism the government's response to the virus has been sluggish and inadequate. But the president said he continued to oppose a ban on travel from West Africa.
Klain has been out of government since leaving Biden's office during the Obama's first term, but has remained a trusted adviser to the Obama administration. The White House said that Klain would report to national security adviser Susan Rice and to homeland security and counterterrorism adviser Lisa Monaco. Klain, a lawyer, also served as chief of staff for Vice President Al Gore. He previously served under Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration.
Friday's decision followed remarks a day earlier that it "may be appropriate” for him “to appoint an additional person" to head the administration’s effort in addressing the ongoing situation. Obama authorized calling up military reservists for the U.S. fight against Ebola in West Africa on Thursday.
The president also said he is "not philosophically opposed" to a travel ban from the Ebola-afflicted region of West Africa "if that is the thing that is going to keep the American people safe." But he said experts tell him a ban would be less effective than measures currently in place.
U.S. Federal Aviation Administration chief Michael Huerta told reporters separately that the government was assessing whether to issue a travel ban “on a day-to-day basis.”
The administration is under growing criticism from lawmakers over its efforts to contain the disease at home. Lawmakers in Washington focused questions and pointed criticism at a Thursday congressional hearing on Centers for Disease Control director Thomas Frieden.
“We need to look at all the options available to keep our families safe and move quickly and responsibly to make any necessary changes at airports,” Democratic Representative Bruce Braley of Iowa told the hearing.
Source
|
On October 17 2014 02:22 DannyJ wrote: Local debates are just fantastic sometimes. I'm pretty sure the amateurism that some state level politicians show is part of the reason why America is still a living country and somewhat able to face its flaws.
|
On October 17 2014 22:05 Melliflue wrote: Tbh, if I were scheduled to have a debate with somebody and we had agreed a set of rules for the debate but then my opponent broke those rules before the debate even started then I would feel the same way as Scott, because I would not trust my opponent to debate honestly and I would not want to partake in the debate.
we are talking about a fucking fan here. "no electronical devices" as a rule is clearly aimed at smartphones or something along the lines. You don't trust someone who brings a fan to a debate because he has some sweating issues to argue honestly. Are you serious? "Hey this guy brought his insulin pump to the discussion, we agreed on no electronical devices!"The only thing the guy who denied to debate has done is making a giant idiot out of himself.
|
Norway28260 Posts
On October 17 2014 22:05 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 03:21 Nyxisto wrote: The one guy had a fan below the lectern and so the scary bald guy didn't want to debate him, I don't actually know why and I'm not sure I understand how Florida works I guess it is very hot standing in a suit with those lights pointing at you. Visibly sweating during a debate is undesirable because it tends to put voters off. Saying somebody was sweating portrays them negatively because of some of the connotations of "sweating", for example; it may make a voter believe the person sweating is nervous or dishonest or guilty. Anyway, Charlie Crist broke the rules of the debate before the debate even started and then used Rick Scott's absence as a way to promote himself (by implying that Scott did not care about the issues.) I have a lot of sympathy for Scott in this case. You can argue that Scott is silly for almost stopping a debate over a fan, but it was important enough for Crist that he was willing to break the rules of the debate in order to have the fan there. The blame for that incident lies with Crist, not Scott. Tbh, if I were scheduled to have a debate with somebody and we had agreed a set of rules for the debate but then my opponent broke those rules before the debate even started then I would feel the same way as Scott, because I would not trust my opponent to debate honestly and I would not want to partake in the debate. There is the further discussion about why the condition about the fan/electronic devices was part of the rules in the first place. If it was to prevent a candidate taking up a tablet pc or smart-phone so their advisers could pass along answers/facts during the debate then the fan isn't important. If fans were meant to be forbidden then, yeah, it is a big deal that Crist broke that rule, although I would still be curious why fans were banned.
are you for real? it's a fan..
|
On October 17 2014 04:04 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2014 18:39 KwarK wrote: And you assume that they haven't anticipated such expenses and built them into the budget? Or that if they overspend due to something like that the overseeing body will go "hey, you know those things that we're paying you to do, don't worry about those this year"?
The money doesn't come from shareholders, it doesn't impact the bottom line. Yes I am assuming that, because they didn't do that. "Oh yes, here's 2 million for our rehab center for lawsuits brought against it this year." That's simply not how government-run agencies work. They typically scrounge for every dollar they can get, and most don't get extra money for unforeseen circumstances, especially something like an adverse court decision. And you make this silly argument as if private corporations don't anticipate these kinds of expenses. It's private corporations that have control of their own budget. They aren't living from year to year on whatever is allotted them by the most recently elected politicians, and they are far better equipped than something like the only state-run rehab center in the area to "build these expenses into the budget."
On October 17 2014 14:31 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 13:07 Danglars wrote:On October 17 2014 04:04 IgnE wrote:On October 16 2014 18:39 KwarK wrote: And you assume that they haven't anticipated such expenses and built them into the budget? Or that if they overspend due to something like that the overseeing body will go "hey, you know those things that we're paying you to do, don't worry about those this year"?
The money doesn't come from shareholders, it doesn't impact the bottom line. Yes I am assuming that, because they didn't do that. "Oh yes, here's 2 million for our rehab center for lawsuits brought against it this year." That's simply not how government-run agencies work. They typically scrounge for every dollar they can get, and most don't get extra money for unforeseen circumstances, especially something like an adverse court decision. And you make this silly argument as if private corporations don't anticipate these kinds of expenses. It's private corporations that have control of their own budget. They aren't living from year to year on whatever is allotted them by the most recently elected politicians, and they are far better equipped than something like the only state-run rehab center in the area to "build these expenses into the budget." Got a source for government agencies scrounging for every dollar they can get? Yeah it's called experience. Private companies don't have complete control over their budgets either. You can't just dictate what your sales are going to be, what your suppliers are going to charge or what financing you're going to have access to.
As for government agencies and cost savings, I have no doubt that they do try to save money. The real problem there is that substantial cost savings come from changing how work is done, not by looking for pennies to pinch. For any type of organization (public or private) that kind of cost savings is really hard to do. In the private sector that kind of cost savings is largely done by new entrants (ex. Toyota in autos, Southwest in airlines). Unfortunately that dynamic is largely absent in government run agencies and so it is much more likely that you end up with dismal productivity / cost savings over time.
|
On October 18 2014 03:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 22:05 Melliflue wrote:On October 17 2014 03:21 Nyxisto wrote: The one guy had a fan below the lectern and so the scary bald guy didn't want to debate him, I don't actually know why and I'm not sure I understand how Florida works I guess it is very hot standing in a suit with those lights pointing at you. Visibly sweating during a debate is undesirable because it tends to put voters off. Saying somebody was sweating portrays them negatively because of some of the connotations of "sweating", for example; it may make a voter believe the person sweating is nervous or dishonest or guilty. Anyway, Charlie Crist broke the rules of the debate before the debate even started and then used Rick Scott's absence as a way to promote himself (by implying that Scott did not care about the issues.) I have a lot of sympathy for Scott in this case. You can argue that Scott is silly for almost stopping a debate over a fan, but it was important enough for Crist that he was willing to break the rules of the debate in order to have the fan there. The blame for that incident lies with Crist, not Scott. Tbh, if I were scheduled to have a debate with somebody and we had agreed a set of rules for the debate but then my opponent broke those rules before the debate even started then I would feel the same way as Scott, because I would not trust my opponent to debate honestly and I would not want to partake in the debate. There is the further discussion about why the condition about the fan/electronic devices was part of the rules in the first place. If it was to prevent a candidate taking up a tablet pc or smart-phone so their advisers could pass along answers/facts during the debate then the fan isn't important. If fans were meant to be forbidden then, yeah, it is a big deal that Crist broke that rule, although I would still be curious why fans were banned. are you for real? it's a fan.. As I tried to say, it's a problem if fans were explicitly banned and not just electronic devices. I explicitly said
If it was to prevent a candidate taking up a tablet pc or smart-phone so their advisers could pass along answers/facts during the debate then the fan isn't important. I only have a problem if fans particularly were banned. Even then, it's not the fact he brought a fan, it would be that he broke one of the rules. And if fans were explicitly banned, then why? I don't know the exact rules of the debate. I don't know why those rules were written the way they were. I imagine they contain all sorts of rules that don't seem important to me. However, both sides agreed to the rules (presumably) so he shouldn't break them. But again, that is only a big deal to me if fans particularly were banned and not just "electronic devices".
|
1. Of course private companies don't have complete control. The point is clearly that they have more control than state agencies whose budgets are apportioned by legislatures. Do you disagree?
2. When I said that "they typically scrounge for every dollar they can get" I did not mean that they are always trying to maximize "productivity" and cut costs in an effort to improve "efficiency." What I meant was that the money they get is almost always appropriated for certain things (salaries, projects, whatever) as soon as they get it such that they don't just have a surplus sitting around. There are people in every agency that depend on a certain amount of money from the budget every year, and so when an agency gets hit with what sounds like a relatively steep fine (given the size of the agency), something has to get cut within the agency, and at least some people, possibly most of the people there, will not like it.
|
On October 18 2014 04:28 IgnE wrote: 1. Of course private companies don't have complete control. The point is clearly that they have more control than state agencies whose budgets are apportioned by legislatures. Do you disagree?
2. When I said that "they typically scrounge for every dollar they can get" I did not mean that they are always trying to maximize "productivity" and cut costs in an effort to improve "efficiency." What I meant was that the money they get is almost always appropriated for certain things (salaries, projects, whatever) as soon as they get it such that they don't just have a surplus sitting around. There are people in every agency that depend on a certain amount of money from the budget every year, and so when an agency gets hit with what sounds like a relatively steep fine (given the size of the agency), something has to get cut within the agency, and at least some people, possibly most of the people there, will not like it. 1. Depends if you consider an agency to be separate from the legislature. To my knowledge, agencies are involved in the budgeting process regardless.
2. It's a similar dynamic for a private business. If you are hit with a steep fine (given the size of the firm) something has to get cut and could even result in bankruptcy.
As for not trying to increase productivity and improve efficiency... well that's part of the problem.
|
A federal judge struck down Arizona's ban on gay marriage on Friday and cleared the way for legally recognized same-sex unions in the state, a decision that was followed by a Supreme Court denial of Alaska's last-ditch attempt to stop gay marriages pending an appeal.
The decisions came amid a federal government announcement that it will recognize same-sex marriage in seven more states.
The Arizona ruling by U.S. District Judge John Sedwick bars state officials from enforcing a 1996 state law and a 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage in the state.
Sedwick ordered the state to "permanently cease" its ban on gay marriage and declined to stay his order, writing that Arizona restrictions on gay marriage were "unconstitutional by virtue of the fact that they deny same-sex couples the equal protection of the law."
The decision, which is expected to bring the number of states that allow gay marriage to 30, comes as barriers to such unions have fallen in many states in recent weeks following a string of federal court decisions.
Source
|
Russian Federation3631 Posts
On October 17 2014 16:36 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2014 13:50 419 wrote:I swear this congressional hearing on Ebola scares the hell out of me, not the disease, but the politicians who don't believe in Science but can't understand why planes are cleaned everyday. I mean the fuck...
Every time I hear this term (or variations thereof) I tend to suspect it is someone equating "anti-science" with "doesn't agree with me." If someone believes in science and someone else doesn't, it necessarily follows that they don't agree with them. It's a necessary truth, a tautology even, so it's superfluous. Aside that, anti-science beliefs can have real, material, human costs when applied to governmental policy, hence the concern. alternatively, "you disagree with me" doesn't mean "you're anti-science." that's the entire foundation of a properly adversarial peer-review process.
One mark of Science! zealotry is the inability to distinguish between the two.
|
so this column begins by mocking the idea that we should obey "messages from the market" by comparing them to the Will of God, then does a 180 and explains to us quod mercatus vult, which is of course to keep printing money and monetizing deficits. Thanks, prophet krugman (peace be upon him).
I think I'll assign this to my students as an exercise in "elementary bullshit detection"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/opinion/paul-krugman-what-markets-will.html
I hope Paul Krugman has never been in charge of rearing a 2 year old because he thinks that the appropriate response to a tantrum is to give the tantrum-er what it wants
Gather 'round everyone, time to chant our mantra. All together now: "we can end the depression and fix the economy by injecting liquidity into the financial system... we can end the depression and fix the economy by injecting liquidity into the financial system... we can end the depression and fix the economy by injecting liquidity into the financial system..."
QE is too big to fail.
but hey, since it's magic and there's absolutely no dangers associated with expanding the Fed's balance sheet, why not just tack on a bunch of zeros? Let's just change all those Bs into Ts... that will REALLY get the juices flowing!! It's all just numbers in a computer, what could go wrong? Wait, actually, I've got a great idea... why don't we just cut out the middle man and run the entire economy from the Eccles building? It's more efficient that way! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?? They have many holders of degrees in Economics, who are known for their deep thought and critical thinking skills, they have really impressive math that explains to them how the entire world works... let them plan everything for us!
|
On October 18 2014 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 04:28 IgnE wrote: 1. Of course private companies don't have complete control. The point is clearly that they have more control than state agencies whose budgets are apportioned by legislatures. Do you disagree?
2. When I said that "they typically scrounge for every dollar they can get" I did not mean that they are always trying to maximize "productivity" and cut costs in an effort to improve "efficiency." What I meant was that the money they get is almost always appropriated for certain things (salaries, projects, whatever) as soon as they get it such that they don't just have a surplus sitting around. There are people in every agency that depend on a certain amount of money from the budget every year, and so when an agency gets hit with what sounds like a relatively steep fine (given the size of the agency), something has to get cut within the agency, and at least some people, possibly most of the people there, will not like it. 1. Depends if you consider an agency to be separate from the legislature. To my knowledge, agencies are involved in the budgeting process regardless. 2. It's a similar dynamic for a private business. If you are hit with a steep fine (given the size of the firm) something has to get cut and could even result in bankruptcy. As for not trying to increase productivity and improve efficiency... well that's part of the problem.
1. Your statement is too vague to be meaningful, and yet you still say it.
2. While sometimes true, not always. Plenty of large corporations routinely set aside money for lawsuits, settlements, and fines, as the cost of doing business. Microsoft for example was paying millions in fines every month years ago because the fine was less than the money they were raking in by not being in compliance. Banks routinely pay large fines, having already made many times the amount of the fine by ignoring an agency's or court's decision. You cannot say the same thing about small state agencies. In any case I was originally replying to Kwark and his implication that government agencies are somehow better suited to handle unexpected fines like this because "taxpayers' money," whatever that means.
As for always trying to increase "productivity" and improve "efficiency," they are arbitrarily defined concepts that are oriented towards certain market indicators and economic indices with little regard for what an economy is actually for. Always trying to improve them without considering why you are trying to improve them is a far bigger problem today.
Are some government agencies wasteful, even by the most lax interpretation of "wasteful"? Yes. Are they all wasteful all the time? No. Who is the biggest offender? The military industrial complex. Why do conservatives usually not care about the military's wastefulness? Because they redefine their priorities when evaluating that branch's of the government spending. "Efficiency" does not top the list of priorities when it comes to national defense. Assuming that it should always and everywhere top the list for every enterprise that is not the military (perhaps healthcare is another area where efficiency is not the top priority) is taken for granted when it shouldn't be.
|
Military spending is bipartisan on both sides. There has been a push this year to audit the Pentagon and cut unnecessary or half-baked projects.
An anti-war California liberal and a Texas conservative who once spoke approvingly about impeaching President Barack Obama are demanding an immediate audit of the Pentagon.
The bipartisan team is introducing legislation Thursday that would reduce funds to spending areas the Department of Defense says are unauditable.
Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Michael Burgess, R-Texas, will announce the "Audit the Pentagon Act of 2014" alongside Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.
Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich., is another original co-sponsor.
A 2013 version of the bill died in committee. But with an eye toward passage, the new edition imposes a 0.5 percent cut to unauditable spending areas, rather than the 5 percent reduction proposed last year. The bill is stuck in committee and almost certainly will die there because this is an election year and neither party wants to ruffle feathers, especially not with a new war on ISIS.
I think it's quite bold to say one wing considers efficiency a higher priority than the other. It's also fairly arguable of whether the military industrial complex is "the most" wasteful, but it's a red herring of a debate because it doesn't exonerate the #2-10 wasteful industries as somehow better simply because they don't win the title.
|
It's a pointless conversation because being wasteful is the PURPOSE of the military-industrial complex. When you generate waste you increase the GDP, which is after all the purpose of life
|
On October 18 2014 09:17 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2014 04:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 18 2014 04:28 IgnE wrote: 1. Of course private companies don't have complete control. The point is clearly that they have more control than state agencies whose budgets are apportioned by legislatures. Do you disagree?
2. When I said that "they typically scrounge for every dollar they can get" I did not mean that they are always trying to maximize "productivity" and cut costs in an effort to improve "efficiency." What I meant was that the money they get is almost always appropriated for certain things (salaries, projects, whatever) as soon as they get it such that they don't just have a surplus sitting around. There are people in every agency that depend on a certain amount of money from the budget every year, and so when an agency gets hit with what sounds like a relatively steep fine (given the size of the agency), something has to get cut within the agency, and at least some people, possibly most of the people there, will not like it. 1. Depends if you consider an agency to be separate from the legislature. To my knowledge, agencies are involved in the budgeting process regardless. 2. It's a similar dynamic for a private business. If you are hit with a steep fine (given the size of the firm) something has to get cut and could even result in bankruptcy. As for not trying to increase productivity and improve efficiency... well that's part of the problem. 1. Your statement is too vague to be meaningful, and yet you still say it. 2. While sometimes true, not always. Plenty of large corporations routinely set aside money for lawsuits, settlements, and fines, as the cost of doing business. Microsoft for example was paying millions in fines every month years ago because the fine was less than the money they were raking in by not being in compliance. Banks routinely pay large fines, having already made many times the amount of the fine by ignoring an agency's or court's decision. You cannot say the same thing about small state agencies. In any case I was originally replying to Kwark and his implication that government agencies are somehow better suited to handle unexpected fines like this because "taxpayers' money," whatever that means. As for always trying to increase "productivity" and improve "efficiency," they are arbitrarily defined concepts that are oriented towards certain market indicators and economic indices with little regard for what an economy is actually for. Always trying to improve them without considering why you are trying to improve them is a far bigger problem today. Are some government agencies wasteful, even by the most lax interpretation of "wasteful"? Yes. Are they all wasteful all the time? No. Who is the biggest offender? The military industrial complex. Why do conservatives usually not care about the military's wastefulness? Because they redefine their priorities when evaluating that branch's of the government spending. "Efficiency" does not top the list of priorities when it comes to national defense. Assuming that it should always and everywhere top the list for every enterprise that is not the military (perhaps healthcare is another area where efficiency is not the top priority) is taken for granted when it shouldn't be. 1. Sorry if it was vague, I didn't think it was! You seem to be separating agencies from legislatures which seems arbitrary. An analogy would be to say that a private business' cost or profit center doesn't have control over its budget because the corporate office controls that. Well, aren't they part of the same entity? And isn't both a government agency and legislature part of the same government?
2. Yes some businesses set aside funds to pay for lawsuits / settlements. Sometimes they don't. It depends on how well funded they are and how expected the settlement is. Yeah, I wouldn't expect a small town or agency to set aside a lot of funding for unexpected lawsuits, but I wouldn't expect a small business to either. States are big organizations though, they have very strong funding capability (taxes) and bankruptcy is unlikely so yes, they have a very strong ability to pay for settlements.
"Productivity" and "efficiency" have to do with using resources to create a desired output. You can argue over what those outputs should be, but you really shouldn't be arguing that efficient is bad. It's a bit of semantics but sometimes, yes, 'efficient' is code for 'cut' and sometimes real efficiency is feared to be just a 'cut'. I think that's what happens a lot with things like healthcare or the military. What one person claims is a productive cost savings another fears it is cheapening something they like.
Edit: I'm not disagreeing with you much btw. I'm mainly just pointing out that private businesses also have budget constraints and chatting about productivity
|
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — A federal judge has ordered Wyoming to allow same-sex marriage but has stayed his decision so that the state can appeal if it wants.
U.S. District Judge Scott Skavdahl ruled Friday that the state must comply with a ruling by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals that permits same-sex marriage.
But he says his ruling will not take effect until next Thursday in order to allow time for the state to appeal.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review several federal court rulings that upheld gay marriage as a constitutional right. The rulings include the one from the 10th Circuit, which covers Wyoming and five other states.
Source
|
With the Nov. 4 ballot measure, Colorado is at the forefront of a fierce food fight raging across the nation: whether or not to label foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, so consumers can easily see if the food they buy is a product of genetic engineering.
Similar ballot initiatives failed in California and Washington in the past two years.
This spring, Vermont became the first state to approve GMO labeling. But then a group of national organizations — led by the Grocery Manufacturers Association — filed a lawsuit in federal court that challenges the new law. This could be the first of many lawsuits to block mandatory GMO labeling, experts say, and now Colorado jumps into the high-stakes debate.
"It will be a hot issue for quite a while in this state," said Katie Abrams, an assistant professor at Colorado State University who researches consumer understanding of food labels. "And it's going on in more places than just Colorado."
GMO labeling will also be on the ballot in Oregon, and this year about 35 similar bills were introduced in 20 states.
Source
|
|
|
|