I'm starting to feel pity for McCain.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The rich generally receive more benefits from the government than the poor do. They have more assets to protect, for one, and are more dependent on a stable society to earn their money (either as highly-paid professionals or as investors).

Those assets could and would be easily protected by private security and arbitrators were there no police and courts (in fact the cost of a private solution kept entirely to oneself would be cheaper than the taxes they currently pay for others' usage of police and courts), whereas the poor would just plain starve or freeze to death in the streets and/or die of easily treatable diseases were there no welfare state whatsoever. In that sense they always benefit more in the aggregate from government services than the rich do. Frankly I'm surprised that's even in dispute.

[Ramo]

Consider who loses a higher percentage of their income when government collapses: manual laborers or hedge fund managers?

[Darius871]

The difference between losing some of your wealth or dying a slow, painful death isn't a matter of "percentage."

Also I don't recall where the context of a "collapse" was mentioned.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Darius871


Those assets could and would be easily protected by private security and arbitrators were there no police and courts (in fact the cost of a private solution kept entirely to oneself would be cheaper than the taxes they currently pay for others' usage of police and courts)

You are not thinking clearly about this issue.

I am agreeing that it would be cheaper for the rich to protect their own assets than to pay the lion's share of protecting everybody's assets. But each individual rich person gets more out of the court system, the highway system, the police, the army etc. than each individual poor person does. The value of these things to somebody with billions of dollars is in the tens of millions per year, while the value to an individual with virtually no assets is much smaller (though not 0, even if he has 0 income).

Therefore, a head tax would overstate the benefit to the poor from government. Meanwhile, I agree that a flat tax probably understates the benefits they get. As above, even a homeless person gets some value out of police protection (however much he actually gets).

There are even some senses in which the benefit to the rich is progressive with income. A bit of social instability does little harm to somebody in the trades, or farmers, etc. but does a great deal of harm to somebody who relies on a complex, structured society to earn his living. However, I doubt this is as major a consideration as the above two.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You are not thinking clearly about this issue.

I am agreeing that it would be cheaper for the rich to protect their own assets than to pay the lion's share of protecting everybody's assets. But each individual rich person gets more out of the court system, the highway system, the police, the army etc. than each individual poor person does. The value of these things to somebody with billions of dollars is in the tens of millions per year, while the value to an individual with virtually no assets is much smaller (though not 0, even if he has 0 income).

Therefore, a head tax would overstate the benefit to the poor from government. Meanwhile, I agree that a flat tax probably understates the benefits they get. As above, even a homeless person gets some value out of police protection (however much he actually gets).

There are even some senses in which the benefit to the rich is progressive with income. A bit of social instability does little harm to somebody in the trades, or farmers, etc. but does a great deal of harm to somebody who relies on a complex, structured society to earn his living. However, I doubt this is as major a consideration as the above two.

Of course incomes of the rich rely on a complex, structured society, and I'm looking at the same big-picture you are, not at an individual rich guy. But what you appear to have in mind, and what Ramo definitely does, is some sort of sudden collapse of government or its voluntary dissolution in this day and age, when the welfare state is already too pervasively ingrained. I never supposed any such thing, and I agree that the ensuing chaos in that scenario would leave the rich unable to do any business beyond perhaps a merely local scale, if the roving Mad Max gangs don't put their heads on pikes first.

Suppose instead alternate history hypothetical where Progressivism never developed to start alleviating the vast social divisions of the Gilded Age, and gradually more and more government functions were privatized to the point that only national defense remained public. Public opinion of the poor wouldn't have let this happen of course, so you have to suppose an ahistorical degree of A) compacency among the masses and/or B) ruthless suppression with violence for the hypothetical to work, but viewed that way you could compare 2008 in that timeline with the 2008 we know, and the rich would probably be gaining much more (by not subsidising every aspect of others' lives) than they would be losing in terms of economic opportunity.

In any case that's too theoretical for my tastes, and even if it's wrong, really the main point as I said to Ramo is that a poor guy dying an agonizing death out in the elements is infinitely worse for him than a rich guy losing even 99% of his fortune is for him, which makes your attempt to quantify the differences meaningless. One side has a summer house or a yacht or a Benz to lose, while the other side has everything to lose. Don't you see the difference?

[KrazyHorse]

You're not answering the stuff I put into the first two paragraphs.

A rich person gets more, as an absolute dollar figure, from the existence of the court system/police/army/highway system than a poor person does.

Do you agree or not?

[Jon Miller]

That is exactly the point I have argued with people yesterday and today.

JM

[Darius871]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
You're not answering the stuff I put into the first two paragraphs.

A rich person gets more, as an absolute dollar figure, from the existence of the court system/police/army/highway system than a poor person does.

Do you agree or not?

I never disagreed with that. As I said, I instead disagree with your assumption that the "absolute dollar figure" even matters, when all I said to start this was "services from which Y benefits more" which doesn't necessarily mean Y gets a bigger "absolute dollar figure" from the government than X.

It could instead mean that Y "benefits" more by going from 1) a miserable life with extremely high likelihood of early death to 2) a full belly, some kind of shelter, and healthcare, than X benefits by going from 1) one high-end condo, a Benz, and a pontoon to 2) five mansions, a Maserati, and a 48' yacht. In other words, even though the difference between X1 and X2 obviously has a far smaller "absolute dollar value" than the difference between Y1 and Y2, X nonetheless "benefits" more in the eyes of anyone who enjoys not being either in hell on earth or six feet under. If you think otherwise, then that's really the only point we disagree on.




(I suppose I could argue X and Y simply meant the rich and poor "classes" in which case IMO the rich probably would have an "absolute dollar gain" by replacing subsidized poor with private guards to kill any uppity poor, arbitrators to enforce contracts, private toll roads, monopolistic electricity/telecom grids (or double/triple grids if it'd be less inefficient than monopoly prices), etc. etc. etc., but since there's obviously no way to quantify that alternate history it'd get us nowhere. Regardless of the obvious immorality of such an oppressive society I personally believe some sort of global economy would still survive and keep the rich very cozy, but it'll never actually happen so what's the point of discussing it?)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Darius871


I never disagreed with that. As I said, I instead disagree with your assumption that the "absolute dollar figure" even matters, when all I said to start this was "services from which Y benefits more" which doesn't necessarily mean Y gets a bigger "absolute dollar figure" from the government than X.

That is the whole point. We are disaggregating.

We can place bounds on the true value people in different economic classes get.

The poor get more than a flat tax would suggest. The rich get more than a head tax would suggest. The real answer is somewhere in the middle, and can be approximated by a combination of the two

Note that I am not suggesting this is actually what should be done, as I am a dirty redistributioner.

[Darius871]

Fair enough. Not like we'll ever find out, after all.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Back to Palin...

Sarah Palin's a Brainiac

by Elaine Lafferty

The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.

It's difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin's “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS's Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I'm agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.

I'm a Democrat, but I've worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin's nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women's rights.

What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

Now by “smart,” I don't refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don't really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I'd heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I'm just a country lawyer"...Yup, Palin is that smart.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-27/sarah-palins-a-brainiac/1/

[Thue]

I can believe that Palin is smart, as in raw intelligence, otherwise she would not be where she is.

However, there are other definitions of "smart", as in possessing and acquiring knowledge. There I think Palin clearly fails. For the same reason I also question whether she is really curious about knowledge.

Here is Palin about fruit fly research. No "smart" (as I define it, which includes knowledge, or at least knowing the limits of your own knowledge) person could ever have that opinion. (alternatively she is pandering things she knows are lies)

http://tech.mit.edu/V128/N51/katz.html

In her first policy speech in Pittsburgh last Friday, Sarah Palin spoke about the need for government programs to aid children with disabilities and disorders, highlighting the importance of scientific research into disorders such as autism:

“For many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information. Early identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference.”

Palin agrees with scientists that understanding human diseases is important, but she doesn’t like the strategy scientists have been taking toward this goal:

“Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? … some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.”

As if it is not outrageous enough that our dollars are going to waste on scientists’ play with fruit flies! No, to top it off, it’s going to the particularly unruly French fruit flies, that probably sip a shot of espresso prior to metamorphosis, in their Rive Gauche, crêpe-padded vials.

It is of no use to mention, when arguing with Republicans, that much of what we know about how genetics and molecular biology work comes from work in ‘lowly animals’ like fruit flies and worms. Genetic linkage, recombination, and regulation, sex-linked inheritance, the cell cycle, or programmed cell death, … the endless list that forms the most beautiful discoveries of how we work and where we come from.

This would be intellectual and elitist — an appeal to knowledge that we have, and they don’t. It would require the curiosity and education that members of the other party conspicuously lack.

A more effective strategy is to shower opponents with a list of biomedical applications of this basic research. A list that’s catchy and direct, and easily explained in a thirty second sound bite on an evening news program.

The applicability of these studies begin with what is undoubtedly the most relevant disease to Sarah Palin personally. When Palin’s doctors broke the news that her future child will have Down syndrome (or ‘Trisomy 21’), they probably explained that this disorder results from having an extra copy of chromosome 21. They might have also mentioned that the extra copy is a product of failure in the process of chromosome segregation, a fundamental aspect of the cell cycle across most organisms.

What Palin doesn’t know is that defects in chromosome segregation and replication are powerfully studied in fruit flies as a model organism — right here at the Whitehead Institute, among other places — and that the ability to watch the segregation process take place in the fly gives the most insight into how and when it goes awry.

It is only against the background of a hundred years of previous genetics research in the fly that this intricate process becomes even remotely tractable for study. And of course, we now know that the key molecular players in this process work the same way in essentially all organisms (a highly suspicious coincidence if one doubts the forces of evolution.)

Palin also doesn’t know that recent work in fruit flies on Fragile X syndrome, the leading genetic cause of mental retardation, starts to unravel the disease gene’s function in nerve cells — and that insights from this work point the way toward potential therapeutic targets. Or that the mapping of several cancer tumor pathways comes from work in flies and worms, culminating in the discovery of wildly successful drug therapies, like the FDA-approved leukemia drug Gleevec.

This list goes on and on. In short, I wouldn’t be surprised if one vial of fruit flies in these research labs has done more for the “public good” Palin spoke of than she has her entire career. (Think of this next time you encounter those little creatures on your apples.)

Sarah Palin ought to be thankful to the real mavericks of genetics, who dared to think that they could understand fundamental pieces of which we are made, even in the humble fruit fly or worm (French or not.) It’s the work of these scientists that gives a glimmer of hope for treating these horrible human disorders.

MIT has been a mecca for biological research, and a tremendous player in these discoveries. Let’s understand the many dazzling discoveries of these scientists — who are all around us — and communicate the bottom-lines of their work to the public. Most importantly, let’s make sure this work continues to be funded by keeping Palin as far away from a position of power as possible.

In summary, when talking to Republicans about science, don’t try to educate. Don’t tell the full story. In the context of this debate, don’t talk about sequence homology, conservation of genetic pathways across organisms or the overwhelming evidence for evolution.

They don’t know, don’t care, and don’t understand. Just go to the bottom line, the medical application, the bang the tax payer’s buck. We want to win this time, and this is what it takes to win.

[Naked Gents Rut]

However, there are other definitions of "smart", as in possessing and acquiring knowledge.

She's obviously not very experienced and therefore lacks knowledge and gives some dumb answers because of it. Obama is no different, however...

Sources: Sarkozy views Obama stance on Iran as 'utterly immature'
By Barak Ravid

French President Nicolas Sarkozy is very critical of U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama's positions on Iran, according to reports that have reached Israel's government.

Sarkozy has made his criticisms only in closed forums in France. But according to a senior Israeli government source, the reports reaching Israel indicate that Sarkozy views the Democratic candidate's stance on Iran as "utterly immature" and comprised of "formulations empty of all content."

Obama visited Paris in July, and the Iranian issue was at the heart of his meeting with Sarkozy. At a joint press conference afterward, Obama urged Iran to accept the West's proposal on its nuclear program, saying that Iran was creating a serious situation that endangered both Israel and the West.

According to the reports reaching Israel, Sarkozy told Obama at that meeting that if the new American president elected in November changed his country's policy toward Iran, that would be "very problematic."

Until now, the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany have tried to maintain a united front on Iran. But according to the senior Israeli source, Sarkozy fears that Obama might "arrogantly" ignore the other members of this front and open a direct dialogue with Iran without preconditions.

Following their July meeting, Sarkozy repeatedly expressed disappointment with Obama's positions on Iran, concluding that they were "not crystallized, and therefore many issues remain open," the Israeli source said. Advisors to the French president who held separate meetings with Obama's advisors came away with similar impressions and expressed similar disappointment.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1031943.html

[Thue]

From http://themoderatevoice.com/at-tmv/n...y-of-darkness/ by PZ Myers.

I am appalled.

This idiot woman, this blind, shortsighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community. You damn well better believe that there is research going on in animal models — what does she expect, that scientists should mutagenize human mothers and chop up baby brains for this work? — and countries like France and Germany and England and Canada and China and India and others are all respected participants in these efforts.

Yes, scientists work on fruit flies. Some of the most powerful tools in genetics and molecular biology are available in fruit flies, and these are animals that are particularly amenable to experimentation. Molecular genetics has revealed that humans share key molecules, the basic developmental toolkit, with all other animals, thanks to our shared evolutionary heritage (something else the wackaloon from Wasilla denies), and that we can use these other organisms to probe the fundamental mechanisms that underlie core processes in the formation of the nervous system — precisely the phenomena Palin claims are so important.

This is where the Republican party has ended up: supporting an ignorant buffoon who believes in the End Times and speaking in tongues while deriding some of the best and most successful strategies for scientific research. In this next election, we’ve got to choose between the 21st century rationalism and Dark Age inanity. It ought to be an easy choice.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Back to Palin...



http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...-a-brainiac/1/

Whatev. "Personal assessments" of how politicians behave behind closed doors aren't worth ****. Sarah Palin has at the least demonstrated in public that she is incurious and ignorant. At the worst, she has demonstrated that she doesn't have the brains God gave a hamster. If and when she manages to actually present herself as cogent I will change my opinion. Maybe she was just flustered to be thrust on the national stage. Maybe she was getting too much direction from the McCain campaign. Maybe she touched the monolith in the last week. I base my opinions on the evidence available to me, which at the moment is damning.