|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Oct 10, 2008 7:52:55 GMT -5
Eetah. I think if it gets much worse, it would be really irresponsible of McCain and Palin to continue this line of attack. I also wonder how they feel about knowing that these kinds of people are among their supporters. I cheered aloud last night when Anderson Cooper had on a group of 3 of the usual pundits and they were all "yeah, dirty campaigns, both sides getting personal, yada yada" They showed clips of Palin and McCain doing the Ayers bit and then showed Obama's commercial about McCain being "erratic" and (of all words) "lurching." And Paul Begala finally said to Cooper and the other 2, "Now just hold up here a minute. Sure, Obama isn't pristine when you do the Fact Check thing, and yes, calling someone "erratic and unfit to led" is a personal attack rather than issues-based, but come on now, what's coming out of the Obama camp is no where near as offensive, ugly, and low-down as the fear-mongering and rabble-rousing and crowd-baiting as what McCain and Palin are doing." and I'm glad somebody finally called a member of the media on their balancing act.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Oct 10, 2008 7:55:10 GMT -5
This is a small rant about one particular federal earmark program: the Montana Bear DNA project. I read the article a few days ago (it's online and not hard to find), and don't have the link now, but it was a standard multiagency cooperative project- and followed another project in the same area very closely, with the same primary investigator and the same grad student co-authors. What this means, in terms of field biology (or botany, or archaelogy) is that the second project was almost certainly a resultant of the first- which had been a standard field survey of bear population ecology. The DNA study worked the same area, and used a new application (extracting endo DNA from scat- the first study had used dna to study diet) to gain new information about the same population- most specifically, to measure actual numbers and the range of individual animals in a way which was cheaper and more efficient (and substantially safer for both bears and scientists) than classic trap and tag study. The reason studies like this are funded through either earmarks or end-of-budget funds is that going through standard granting procedure is slow and: 1. Trained field biologists are not going to hang out in Montana waiting for the funds to come through for a follow-up program 2. Delay means that data from the initial phase becomes less relevant; in population and range studies, separation by more than one hibernation season adds new individuals to the population which could be returning wanderers as easily as new cubs, for instance. 3. In this specific case, there was a management plan being written for Glacier International Park, and a large amount of population data over a huge geographic area was needed quickly under a Canada US treaty; the earmarked funds allowed fewer scientists to do more work more quickly than had been planned. There's been considerable bitching about this particular bit of money under the rubric of "peer review" but it's really unlikely that either FWS, NFS, or the Park Service would have gone to the elected branch without the chief scientists having signed off on it. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are not the only agencies with established research protocols and professional peer review, and there are often financial shortfalls in research budgets which need special money patches. Julia, having actually pushed paper in a complex field research project, and got to see funding sausage being made It looked like a reasonable thing to me. Also, according to Factcheck.org, McCain voted for funding the bear DNA project. So it's okay that he voted for it, but not okay that Obama did?
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 10, 2008 8:04:26 GMT -5
I cheered aloud last night when Anderson Cooper had on a group of 3 of the usual pundits and they were all "yeah, dirty campaigns, both sides getting personal, yada yada" They showed clips of Palin and McCain doing the Ayers bit and then showed Obama's commercial about McCain being "erratic" and (of all words) "lurching." And Paul Begala finally said to Cooper and the other 2, "Now just hold up here a minute. Sure, Obama isn't pristine when you do the Fact Check thing, and yes, calling someone "erratic and unfit to led" is a personal attack rather than issues-based, but come on now, what's coming out of the Obama camp is no where near as offensive, ugly, and low-down as the fear-mongering and rabble-rousing and crowd-baiting as what McCain and Palin are doing." and I'm glad somebody finally called a member of the media on their balancing act. Well, to me it speaks of harm you are doing to America for heaven's sake. I mean, I've read and heard a few things about "what is going to happen if Obama isn't elected" -- clearly implying that his supporters might riot in the streets (or something.) But after I scream my head off, chow down on any remaining tranquilizers I might be able to find around the house, stay in bed for 3 days with the covers over my head and enter into a severe depression; I'll live with it. Even if I think my president is "erratic, unfit to lead, doesn't have a clue about the economy and may lead us into a 3rd war." But what happens when McCain is not elected? One hopes that the majority of the 40% voting for him will do exactly as described above, hold their breath and attempt to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. But clearly there is going to be some (how large) part of that group who think we've got a "one man sleeper cell" (yes, I did hear that phrase uttered in a man on the street interview), terrorist, Muslim, Manchurian candidate (which is SO weird, since McCain is the one that so fits the MC profile) who hates America in the White HOuse. I hope it's a very small sub-group. But it only takes one crazy. The saddest thing is the crazy, angry women that I've seen interviewed. It's remotely possible that after the election (should Obama win) McCain will be able to suck it up, pull it together and give some sort of "put this behind us and give bi-partisan support to our new President." I wonder if Sarah Palin will be able to do so. I think McCain is a jaded politician. I'm not sure if SP is that or a "true believer" in what she is saying.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 10, 2008 8:09:37 GMT -5
This is a small rant about one particular federal earmark program: the Montana Bear DNA project. I read the article a few days ago (it's online and not hard to find), and don't have the link now, but it was a standard multiagency cooperative project- and followed another project in the same area very closely, with the same primary investigator and the same grad student co-authors. What this means, in terms of field biology (or botany, or archaelogy) is that the second project was almost certainly a resultant of the first- which had been a standard field survey of bear population ecology. The DNA study worked the same area, and used a new application (extracting endo DNA from scat- the first study had used dna to study diet) to gain new information about the same population- most specifically, to measure actual numbers and the range of individual animals in a way which was cheaper and more efficient (and substantially safer for both bears and scientists) than classic trap and tag study. The reason studies like this are funded through either earmarks or end-of-budget funds is that going through standard granting procedure is slow and: 1. Trained field biologists are not going to hang out in Montana waiting for the funds to come through for a follow-up program 2. Delay means that data from the initial phase becomes less relevant; in population and range studies, separation by more than one hibernation season adds new individuals to the population which could be returning wanderers as easily as new cubs, for instance. 3. In this specific case, there was a management plan being written for Glacier International Park, and a large amount of population data over a huge geographic area was needed quickly under a Canada US treaty; the earmarked funds allowed fewer scientists to do more work more quickly than had been planned. There's been considerable bitching about this particular bit of money under the rubric of "peer review" but it's really unlikely that either FWS, NFS, or the Park Service would have gone to the elected branch without the chief scientists having signed off on it. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are not the only agencies with established research protocols and professional peer review, and there are often financial shortfalls in research budgets which need special money patches. Julia, having actually pushed paper in a complex field research project, and got to see funding sausage being made It looked like a reasonable thing to me. Also, according to Factcheck.org, McCain voted for funding the bear DNA project. So it's okay that he voted for it, but not okay that Obama did? That's why he's switched over to the sneering reference to the $300,000 "overhead projector." see below: But at a news conference Wednesday, Adler President Paul Knappenberger defended the request. The museum wants to spend $10 million to update its original, 78-year-old domed Sky Theater auditorium, including replacement of the huge, 40-year-old Zeiss planetarium projection system, which is falling into disrepair with no replacement parts available.
Knappenberger also took issue with McCain's use of the phrase "overhead projector." Knappenberger stood in front of the giant Zeiss projector, while beside him was a much smaller overhead projector used by generations of classroom teachers.
"These cost maybe $300 new," he said of the classroom projector, "and you can pick them up for 10 bucks on eBay now."
More than 30 million people have seen the Zeiss sky shows at the Adler, at least a third of them schoolchildren, Knappenberger said. He noted that planetariums in New York and Los Angeles received federal funding in recent years to replace aging Zeiss systems.
Listed on the Obama Web site, the planetarium earmark requests include $300,000 in 2006 to "update the planetarium projection system," followed by a $3 million request for the same theater in 2007. Neither was approved.
full article here: www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-adler-projectoroct09,0,1534078.story
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 10, 2008 8:23:59 GMT -5
So...it may sound insane, but I'm actually starting to research stock market investing...assuming we don't completely go down in flames, soon will be the time to buy. Not yet. I think we still have a ways to go. But possibly the week before the general election, I might drop a small amount on the market and see what happens. 8300. That's the number Cramer predicts. I'm going to up the percentage of my 401K when we get close, and also put the balance in cash..CD market for now, to hedge my bets. Gas prices in Omaha are as low as $2.86/gallon. Instead of having to spend $120 to drive out here and back, it's only going to set us back $80. Funny how this seems to happen around election time. Now all we need is a major terrorist attack before the election, and both of my conspiracy theories will have come true by the end of the year. Gah...watching Cspan this morning...they really need to change the color of McCain's makeup. It looks like he has a liver problem...very yellow cast.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2008 8:28:54 GMT -5
This is a small rant about one particular federal earmark program: the Montana Bear DNA project. I read the article a few days ago (it's online and not hard to find), and don't have the link now, but it was a standard multiagency cooperative project- and followed another project in the same area very closely, with the same primary investigator and the same grad student co-authors. What this means, in terms of field biology (or botany, or archaelogy) is that the second project was almost certainly a resultant of the first- which had been a standard field survey of bear population ecology. The DNA study worked the same area, and used a new application (extracting endo DNA from scat- the first study had used dna to study diet) to gain new information about the same population- most specifically, to measure actual numbers and the range of individual animals in a way which was cheaper and more efficient (and substantially safer for both bears and scientists) than classic trap and tag study. The reason studies like this are funded through either earmarks or end-of-budget funds is that going through standard granting procedure is slow and: 1. Trained field biologists are not going to hang out in Montana waiting for the funds to come through for a follow-up program 2. Delay means that data from the initial phase becomes less relevant; in population and range studies, separation by more than one hibernation season adds new individuals to the population which could be returning wanderers as easily as new cubs, for instance. 3. In this specific case, there was a management plan being written for Glacier International Park, and a large amount of population data over a huge geographic area was needed quickly under a Canada US treaty; the earmarked funds allowed fewer scientists to do more work more quickly than had been planned. There's been considerable bitching about this particular bit of money under the rubric of "peer review" but it's really unlikely that either FWS, NFS, or the Park Service would have gone to the elected branch without the chief scientists having signed off on it. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are not the only agencies with established research protocols and professional peer review, and there are often financial shortfalls in research budgets which need special money patches. Julia, having actually pushed paper in a complex field research project, and got to see funding sausage being made Yeah; also, the "overhead projector" for the planetarium thing is annoying. Given that we aren't talking about the sort of projector you'd give a talk with. I agree completely about the bear study. Ian, in my lab, actually worked on the forensic DNA part of that study, too, he says. We started talking about how McCain's "earmarks" bullshit lost him the scientist vote, and Ryan spoke up, "Yeah, right. Like any scientist was voting for him after Palin. She doesn't even believe in evolution."
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2008 8:30:17 GMT -5
God, I really hope Obama's Secret Service detail is on the ball. The tone of the McCain/Palin rallies is starting to scare me. I know it's good for poll numbers, but I sorta wish he'd stop doing that Clintonesqe "wading into the crowd" thing. Eetah. I think if it gets much worse, it would be really irresponsible of McCain and Palin to continue this line of attack. I also wonder how they feel about knowing that these kinds of people are among their supporters. I really wish I could believe they care.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2008 8:33:34 GMT -5
Eetah. I think if it gets much worse, it would be really irresponsible of McCain and Palin to continue this line of attack. I also wonder how they feel about knowing that these kinds of people are among their supporters. I cheered aloud last night when Anderson Cooper had on a group of 3 of the usual pundits and they were all "yeah, dirty campaigns, both sides getting personal, yada yada" They showed clips of Palin and McCain doing the Ayers bit and then showed Obama's commercial about McCain being "erratic" and (of all words) "lurching." And Paul Begala finally said to Cooper and the other 2, "Now just hold up here a minute. Sure, Obama isn't pristine when you do the Fact Check thing, and yes, calling someone "erratic and unfit to led" is a personal attack rather than issues-based, but come on now, what's coming out of the Obama camp is no where near as offensive, ugly, and low-down as the fear-mongering and rabble-rousing and crowd-baiting as what McCain and Palin are doing." Glenn Greenwald covered the Washington Post article on that same topic yesterday. www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/One of the commenters mentioned the coining of a new term - "equivalation" - to describe the press' attempts to appear "balanced" by describing fear-mongering and borderline race-bating and then saying, "Oh, and Obama said McCain is erratic." Dude, "erratic" is an accurate description of the man's actions over the last few weeks. Also? "Erratic and unfit to serve" is actually relevant. "Hung out with a guy who was never convicted of anything that he could possibly have done when Obama was 8" is not.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2008 8:35:40 GMT -5
It looked like a reasonable thing to me. Also, according to Factcheck.org, McCain voted for funding the bear DNA project. So it's okay that he voted for it, but not okay that Obama did? That's why he's switched over to the sneering reference to the $300,000 "overhead projector." see below: But at a news conference Wednesday, Adler President Paul Knappenberger defended the request. The museum wants to spend $10 million to update its original, 78-year-old domed Sky Theater auditorium, including replacement of the huge, 40-year-old Zeiss planetarium projection system, which is falling into disrepair with no replacement parts available.
Knappenberger also took issue with McCain's use of the phrase "overhead projector." Knappenberger stood in front of the giant Zeiss projector, while beside him was a much smaller overhead projector used by generations of classroom teachers.
"These cost maybe $300 new," he said of the classroom projector, "and you can pick them up for 10 bucks on eBay now."
More than 30 million people have seen the Zeiss sky shows at the Adler, at least a third of them schoolchildren, Knappenberger said. He noted that planetariums in New York and Los Angeles received federal funding in recent years to replace aging Zeiss systems.
Listed on the Obama Web site, the planetarium earmark requests include $300,000 in 2006 to "update the planetarium projection system," followed by a $3 million request for the same theater in 2007. Neither was approved.
full article here: www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-adler-projectoroct09,0,1534078.story Prezactly.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 10, 2008 8:37:17 GMT -5
So...it may sound insane, but I'm actually starting to research stock market investing...assuming we don't completely go down in flames, soon will be the time to buy. Not yet. I think we still have a ways to go. But possibly the week before the general election, I might drop a small amount on the market and see what happens. 8300. That's the number Cramer predicts. I'm going to up the percentage of my 401K when we get close, and also put the balance in cash..CD market for now, to hedge my bets. Gas prices in Omaha are as low as $2.86/gallon. Instead of having to spend $120 to drive out here and back, it's only going to set us back $80. Funny how this seems to happen around election time. Now all we need is a major terrorist attack before the election, and both of my conspiracy theories will have come true by the end of the year. Gah...watching Cspan this morning...they really need to change the color of McCain's makeup. It looks like he has a liver problem...very yellow cast. I actually think the gas prices are a real reflection of the sinking economy and reduced demand, this time around. And, yeah, we're down to $3.77. Which, whoever thought that would feel cheap? Train's still cheaper, though. We got to 8500 yesterday. I don't think they're estimating the floor accurately. I'm wondering about 7,000, myself.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Oct 10, 2008 9:00:54 GMT -5
This is a small rant about one particular federal earmark program: the Montana Bear DNA project. I read the article a few days ago (it's online and not hard to find), and don't have the link now, but it was a standard multiagency cooperative project- and followed another project in the same area very closely, with the same primary investigator and the same grad student co-authors. What this means, in terms of field biology (or botany, or archaelogy) is that the second project was almost certainly a resultant of the first- which had been a standard field survey of bear population ecology. The DNA study worked the same area, and used a new application (extracting endo DNA from scat- the first study had used dna to study diet) to gain new information about the same population- most specifically, to measure actual numbers and the range of individual animals in a way which was cheaper and more efficient (and substantially safer for both bears and scientists) than classic trap and tag study. The reason studies like this are funded through either earmarks or end-of-budget funds is that going through standard granting procedure is slow and: 1. Trained field biologists are not going to hang out in Montana waiting for the funds to come through for a follow-up program 2. Delay means that data from the initial phase becomes less relevant; in population and range studies, separation by more than one hibernation season adds new individuals to the population which could be returning wanderers as easily as new cubs, for instance. 3. In this specific case, there was a management plan being written for Glacier International Park, and a large amount of population data over a huge geographic area was needed quickly under a Canada US treaty; the earmarked funds allowed fewer scientists to do more work more quickly than had been planned. There's been considerable bitching about this particular bit of money under the rubric of "peer review" but it's really unlikely that either FWS, NFS, or the Park Service would have gone to the elected branch without the chief scientists having signed off on it. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are not the only agencies with established research protocols and professional peer review, and there are often financial shortfalls in research budgets which need special money patches. Julia, having actually pushed paper in a complex field research project, and got to see funding sausage being made It looked like a reasonable thing to me. Also, according to Factcheck.org, McCain voted for funding the bear DNA project. So it's okay that he voted for it, but not okay that Obama did? Not if it's one of the specific examples of earmark spending that he criticized in his campaign. Still not convinced that the funding for a study like this needs to be funded with earmarks and the like, but Julia's right that the issue of research funding is a right bitch.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 10, 2008 9:21:42 GMT -5
8300. That's the number Cramer predicts. I'm going to up the percentage of my 401K when we get close, and also put the balance in cash..CD market for now, to hedge my bets. Gas prices in Omaha are as low as $2.86/gallon. Instead of having to spend $120 to drive out here and back, it's only going to set us back $80. Funny how this seems to happen around election time. Now all we need is a major terrorist attack before the election, and both of my conspiracy theories will have come true by the end of the year. Gah...watching Cspan this morning...they really need to change the color of McCain's makeup. It looks like he has a liver problem...very yellow cast. I actually think the gas prices are a real reflection of the sinking economy and reduced demand, this time around. And, yeah, we're down to $3.77. Which, whoever thought that would feel cheap? Train's still cheaper, though. We got to 8500 yesterday. I don't think they're estimating the floor accurately. I'm wondering about 7,000, myself. I agree about the gas prices, but the sinking economy..I believe..has also been engineered.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 10, 2008 9:31:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Oct 10, 2008 9:32:54 GMT -5
I actually think the gas prices are a real reflection of the sinking economy and reduced demand, this time around. And, yeah, we're down to $3.77. Which, whoever thought that would feel cheap? Train's still cheaper, though. We got to 8500 yesterday. I don't think they're estimating the floor accurately. I'm wondering about 7,000, myself. I agree about the gas prices, but the sinking economy..I believe..has also been engineered. Right there with ya. Been saying that for a while now. I predicted it would happen. And it did. Right on schedule.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 10, 2008 9:35:32 GMT -5
I agree about the gas prices, but the sinking economy..I believe..has also been engineered. Right there with ya. Been saying that for a while now. I predicted it would happen. And it did. Right on schedule. I hate being right. Because I don't like what I'm thinking right now. I mean - how can Bush praise (just 2 minutes ago) Bernanke and Paulson for doing such a great job, when all I can see is that if they missed that this economic crisis was coming, then what the hell kind of economists are they really? ETA: "Bailout" is exactly the right word for what the government just voted to do. Don't we 'bail' criminals out of jail? That little pun was courtesy of a 10 year old boy. OUt of the mouths of babes.
|
|