IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Ever thus, that last: but when the near-Future-at-all is at stake? What. Do? (besides cringe)
New Incremental progress is the path forward. It has always been that way. :-)
Sometimes steps can be pretty big (Medicare, Medicaid, PPACA), but usually progress depends on incremental improvements (paying for dialysis, increased subsidies, lowering eligibility ages, covering more things, etc.).

Bernie's "throw out the current system and start over" approach isn't going anywhere, no matter how wonderful it is in the abstract. There has to be a long, slow transition.

Cheers,
Scott.
New It was.. 'the only way'; with Climate properly addressed.. damn soon-
the vox pop might have the sense of Relief as to actually grok Climate to fullness and ... do the Right-thing re Single-payer too. Might.. ...

Of Course these Are all "IFs"! ... 'Muricans may blow either or both; it's what they Do Do, (whether or not time were running out for their spawn's chances.)
New Drum makes a decent point re addressing Climate Change/GND
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/02/my-abridged-green-new-deal/

There has been some confusion about exactly what I meant in my climate change post on Tuesday. Since I’m in no shape to write anything lengthy, this is a perfect opportunity to boil it down to a sentence or two. Here it is:

If you’re serious about climate change—really serious—then your plan cannot demand very much sacrifice from people. Maybe none, in fact.


That’s it. You will never get widespread support for any plan that requires people to give up the stuff they like. I know that it’s much harder to think of a plan with negligible sacrifice that nevertheless makes a serious dent in climate change—the laundry list of all the usual suspects is much easier—but that’s too bad. The laundry list will never get public support, so if that’s your answer you aren’t really taking the problem seriously.

Keep in mind that the “problem” we’re trying to address is not climate change and never has been. The problem is how to get public support to do something about climate change. That’s what you need to pour all your energy into. And just to give you something to throw brickbats at, here’s my four-step plan:

* Lots and lots of subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency, electrification, etc.
* Huge sums of money for R&D into renewable energy and carbon sequestration.
* A strong focus on job creation.
* A whopping big carbon tax that mostly hits the affluent, with plenty of deficit spending to make up the rest

This is, obviously, not feasible right now. But nothing is feasible for the next couple of years. What we need right now is some serious thinking about what to do if and when liberals gain the political power to do anything, and that thinking needs to unapologetically focus on how to demand the smallest possible sacrifice from the largest number of people.


One can argue with the emphasis, but I think he's mostly right. Doing a few somethings soon is more important than fighting for everything that rationally should be done. Because humans aren't rational. Fighting for the perfect means nothing will happen.

Similarly with Bernie's M4A plan...

Cheers,
Scott.
New A whopping big carbon tax that mostly hits the affluent
well how will they be able to afford their private jets to fly to the climate change conferences?
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New As usual..l your snark is deflected upon the Rong-target. As usual. As usual. Carrion: it's >Here<
New Apropos..
I've auditioned a few of the emerging 'Communication Experts' (focussed upon the Problem of the Many un-Teachables, though they necessarily employ euphemisms for *those*)

Yes.. there Are many 'points' these make re non-combative overtures, some examples of relevant topics as might ease-in-to the jelloware of... Many, I wot BUT: nary a one has (some have so stated) ANY Plan which could--let alone 'may'--even begin to break the concrete-wall of those who, for 'religio' -as a reason? or 'mindset of that': utterly refuse even to discuss the possibility that [all this bad shit] could be stark-truthiness AND what that *MEANS* for every living creature.

Again: these summaries from the few, the experienced/ Pros: aimed at all-the-above. (Never mind my 'takes' nor POV --> re Probabilites. Next. and for the foreseeable:

~~Comfort IS a drug! I aver: to homo-saps; especially for the masses now so accustomed to setting the [one-piece heat/cool meter] to My Temp 24/7-with timed-low-for night: 365 days a year. Wear sweater in house? WHAT!? are you KIDDING? etc. ergo your "creeping gradualism is The Way we Get Things Done ..used to be words to live by, Cratchit. But manifestly we do not have a Generation to ease-out-of the massive acquisition of toys + other stuff of Status (or just Xmas-every-Day obsessions), so necessary for bizness to feed itself via ever increasing that lust? disease? of More Stuff (and the Need must grow with the population).
Profits. ho-hum; add plethora of already discovered mental aberrations caused by Stress, ad infinitum and much of those: via the Religion of Vulture-caoitalismo--is that already inside the collective-genes (?)

The earth's over-Population was addressed a long time ago by Ehrlich; prior to him: many ..way back to Malthus: "food grows geometrically; popuation grows exponentially" etc. (This is only Rocket-science to those who have no glimmer of an idea of how/why Rockets so-simply 'work') + all the other similes on down to: a water-pipe system (pressures, dia. of pipes] as analogue of the majotr electrical formulae.

These are things/forces dealt with daily/hourly! yet: uncountably many Haven't the Foggiest how *anything* 'works' nor curiosity-enough first to Care, thence to Learn, finally to Act--> "as if your life depended on it". ALL THAT is just cha. cha. cha. to a Deciding %vox-pop du jour, I.M.Experience. these n-decades.

tl;dr I have no option but to Sell Short ..this Market of Imbeciles who near-exactly mirror The-(fucking)-Eloi created by Mr. Wells.. those many moons ago. Where we *are* is [Alex's sig. writ Hyarge]



We have become collectively-Too-Stupid even to keep our nests 'Habitable' nay: Existing At All. q. e. fucking-d.


But I remain optimistic in one area: I shall not have to observe the gnashing-of-teeth, the bands of self-scourgers emulating the droves during The medieval Plague(s), nor bear the daily, "I'm Praying for Our Salvation" as may replace even Faux-News as mandatory-mass-distraction. When my "body drops off" I shall be Free/or in oblivion: flip coin. I can happily live/die with that Final Query answered (if anything is listening then?)

Carrion :-) Sometimes it's a Happy Dance ;^>
New Right. That's exactly how we got to the moon. And Medicare. And Medicaid.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Yes, exactly.
You've heard of Vanguard, the X15, and Mercury and Gemini and Apollo, perhaps?

And Medicare and Medicaid are exactly the same now as they were in the 1960s.

Quit thinking that life works like the birth of Venus...



It doesn't.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New So, all that would have happened without the President's speech?
I don't think so. Do you really think JFK had detailed plans for those programs or was even heavily involved in them? No. And thank $DEITY he didn't because if he'd insisted on making all the decisions about the details of how to put a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth it *never* would have happened.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Counter-factuals are always fun.
NASA was created in 1958.

Ad-hoc panel on man in space (December 16, 1960):

We have been plunged into a race for the conquest of outer space. As a reason for this undertaking some look to the new and exciting scientific discoveries which are certain to be made. Others feel the challenge to transport man beyond frontiers he scarcely dared dream about until now. But at present the most impelling reason for our effort has been the international political situation which demands that we demonstrate our technological capabilities if we are to maintain our position of leadership. For all of these reasons we have embarked on a complex and costly adventure. It is the purpose of this report to clarify the goals, the missions and the costs of this effort in the foreseeable future, particularly with regard to the man-in-space program.

This report has been made possible by the complete cooperation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Officials of the NASA presented a very impressive description of their detailed plans for development, utilization and costs of the Saturn vehicle. They also provided technical information on possible follow on vehicles, advanced propulsion techniques, and possible development and funding schedules, As far as we can tell, the NASA program is well thought through, and we believe that the mission, schedules and costs are as realistic as possible at this time. We had to project their plans beyond 1970, and such projections must be seen as only crude estimates.


Weisner Committee Report from January 1961:

[1] I. Introduction
Activities in space now comprise six major categories:

Ballistic missiles.
Scientific observations from satellites.
The exploration of the solar system with instruments carried in deep space probes.
Military space systems.
Man in orbit and in space.
Non-military applications of space technology.
We rely on the first member of the list, ballistic missiles, for a large part of the retaliatory response to the Russian missile threat.

It is generally assumed by the American citizen that our vast expenditures of money and technical talent in the national space program are primarily designed to meet the overriding needs of our military security. The fact is, however, that the sense of excitement and creativity has moved away from the missile field to the other components of the list, and that missiles, long before they are in condition for us to depend upon them, are slowly being delegated to the category of routine management. Before we proceed in this report to discuss and support the important activities in the other five categories we wish to emphasize the hazard of failing to complete and deploy on time our intercontinental deterrent missiles.

[2] In addition to the need to develop ballistic missiles to provide for our military security, there are five principal motivations for desiring a vital, effective space program. It is important to distinguish among them when attempting to evaluate our national space effort.

First, there is the factor of national prestige Space exploration and exploits have captured the imagination of the peoples of the world. During the next few years the prestige of the United States will in part be determined by the leadership we demonstrate in space activities. It is within this context that we must consider man in space. Given time, a desire, considerable innovation, and sufficient effort and money, man can eventually explore our solar system. Given his enormous curiosity about the universe in which he lives and his compelling urge to go where no one has ever been before, this will be done.

[...]


JFK's speech was important, but the infrastructure and a lot of work had already been done before he gave the speech in May 1961.

What's Bernie's timeline for throwing everything out and starting over with M4A? Oh, he doesn't have one.

They aren't comparable.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New I'm well aware that Soviet Russia guided us.
The point remains, however, that it *should not be* the President who implements large policies. He's supposed to inspire us to do great things. And if you believe throwing out the current system and replacing it with some form of MFA is "hard", you've been drinking the corporate kool-aid entirely too long. The details of doing it are, comparably, trivial. The *only* thing that makes it difficult is the current system's entrenched profiteer class and their out-sized political clout. Just as Klobachar's "We can't afford free college tuition!" is plainly false, MFA can be done iff we make it as large a priority as we did slashing the unearned income tax rate, or the bank bailout or the most recent tax cuts.

Pounding hell out of the idea by nitpicking details only furthers the efforts of those currently gaming the existing system (at great expense to us all).

HTH.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Re: I'm well aware that Soviet Russia guided us.
The *only* thing that makes it difficult is the current system's entrenched profiteer class and their out-sized political clout.


And the 13.09 M people employed* in heath care (as of May 2017) - https://www.kff.org/other/state-indicator/total-health-care-employment/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D

* - Health Care Employment includes the following occupations from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Standard Occupational Classification System: Medical and Health Services Managers, Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations, Healthcare Support Occupations, and Community Health Workers.

And the hundreds of thousands to low millions who work in the various aspects of the health insurance industry - https://www.iii.org/sites/default/files/employment-030118.pdf (14 page .pdf).

Ignoring the concerns of ~ 15M people doesn't make their concerns go away.

Just as Klobachar's "We can't afford free college tuition!" is plainly false, ...


Citation needed.

An actual expert (who works in one of the UC systems:

95
🚸 Martin says:
April 10, 2016 at 8:46 pm
@Miss Bianca:

*Is* it actually feasible under any circumstances, or are certain candidates just blowing smoke up people’s…noses?


Well, the community college plan is more feasible than Bernies, simply because the community college capacity is huge and isn’t nearly as overburdened. Expanding it to meet demand would be hard, but not impossible. The hitch is getting the states on board – and good luck with that. Even the blue states aren’t investing.

Alternatively, the feds could dump money in, but I don’t see that being sustainable. But consider the math here for the public research universities. My institution gets 8% of our funding from the state. If you increased the state contribution by 50%, our budget goes up by 4%. That’s not going to enroll 50% more students, not without a change in what a research university means to the country.

And we’re the most heavily impacted by demand. You make public universities free, and suddenly we’ll get swamped by students that are currently opting over to the private university system. Adding those students into the public system, and suddenly we’re going to wind up turning down the students at the margins of our admission pool – and they’re nearly 50% under-represented and majority are low income and first generation. Free tuition to Berkeley means a lot of rich and middle class kids get a free ride and a lot of low income and first generation students get denied.


Slogans aren't real-world policies that actually have a chance of working.

Life is complicated, and more complicated now than it was when college was nearly free for our parents and grand parents. You can't just flip a switch and make those complications go away.

HTH.

Cheers,
Scott.
New "For our parents or grandparents"? How old are you? Six?
It was *tuition-free* for me in 1977 at Long Beach Community College (as I've claimed elsewhere). Back then, Governor Reagan fought hard for tuition (being the Neo-Nazi Fascist he was), but failed.

You want a "source" better than first hand? Fine. How about the NY Times from December 28, 1982?

Emphasis Mine.

California's public system of higher education, long the envy of many other states, is edging toward acceptance of something even Ronald Reagan, as Governor, could not force upon it: tuition. ...

The no-tuition concept was embodied in the state's 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education, which established a three-tier system of free public higher education and led to vast expansion.

The system grew to include nine campuses of the University of California, which accepts the highest achievers among high school graduates; 19 campuses of the California State University system, whose admission standards are less restrictive, and 106 two-year community colleges.

The new recommendation, by an advisory body to the Legislature and Governor, to a large extent addresses a semantic paradox left over from Mr. Reagan's eight years as Governor, ending in 1975.

Mr. Reagan fought hard in the Legislature to impose tuition at four-year colleges. He lost the battle to lobbyists for the university, who have long been among the most powerful in Sacramento.


https://www.nytimes.com/1982/12/28/science/california-weighs-end-of-free-college-education.html

The world DID NOT start in 1983. HTH.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
Expand Edited by mmoffitt Feb. 25, 2019, 04:02:06 PM EST
New Heh.
California had a great public college system for a very long time. But they charge tuition now, like just about everywhere else. (Princeton recently stopped charging tuition and room&board to qualified students - just about everyone accepted with income < $160,000 gets full freight.)

My dad went to Emory and the U of Chicago. He had to pay a nominal amount for tuition at those private schools (a few hundred a quarter, I think). It wasn't free, but it wasn't anywhere near as expensive as now and it was manageable with part time and summer jobs.

The point is, we can't easily go back to those days of nearly free 4-year universities (as Martin points out, community colleges are a different matter). There are lots and lots of reasons why (universities being addicted to foreign students that pay full-freight; lack of space and facilities; issues with diversity ("Why should the 1% get full freight?" is a good question with lots of reasonable answers); etc. "Free college" now is snake oil.

The problem with college isn't that it's not free, it's that it is so off-the-chart expensive in too many cases. Having kids work 10-20 hours a week and a few weeks in the summer to pay for college is fine. Having them $100k+ in debt for 10-20 years is not. That's why "debt free college" was, and is, a sensible approach.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New A primary problem with college today is the idiotic notion that everyone should attend.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New Why shouldn't people go to college?
Our brains don't stop developing until we're ~ 25.

Life is much, much more complicated now than it was 100 years ago.

Why isn't 2-4 more years of school a good thing?

(Note that I'm including some trade schools, on the job training, apprenticeships, etc., in this discussion. Whatever you want to call it, people need to be learning in formal settings past the age of 18.)

"Hey, grandpa left school in the 6th grade so that's good enough for me!!"

>:-p

But you're moving the goal posts - you don't honestly think that "free college" would cause huge problems for 4-year universities?

Cheers,
Scott.
New I don't think "free" and "free tuition" are the same thing.
And, no, I don't think "free" in any case necessarily causes problems for four year schools. Provided, of course, only fit applicants are allowed into university.

With respect to trade schools, union halls, apprenticeships, etc. I think we're on the same page and I'm of the firm view that only about 15-20% or Muricans are qualified university applicants. The rest can join a union, become an apprentice, go to a trade school or what have you. There's no reason for them to be occupying space in a university.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New You'd like Mike Rowe
He's a huge fan of trade schools and apprenticeships, and the idea that "college" should be reserved for the qualified.

He's also funded by the Koch brothers. It's possible they may have arrived at their views via reasoning somewhat different from yours. I wonder what criteria they'd use to identify "qualified" applicants.
--

Drew
New I came to my view by being a TA.
It is both stunning and alarming how many students are admitted to four year colleges and universities in this country who have not mastered high school algebra. You'd be amazed.
bcnu,
Mikem

It's mourning in America again.
New "Is the wavelength of light bigger than a breadbox?"*
You'd be amazed by all kinds of things.

That doesn't mean that people don't learn at and benefit from college.

Cheers,
Scott
* - that supposedly was a PhD oral exam question that someone had trouble with... :-/
New Das Deutschers ..properly? call it a Wissenschafft
Knowledge Factory; much can be extrapolated from the sense that: not Everyone IS really in search of that "liberal education" idea--so Many are in-it-for-the-Future-Money--and That's All! for a group as larges as you wish to 'define'.

Some folks imagineer that: being force-fed a variety of emotionally-sound Ideas--into a confirmed-Racist or Xen ophobe ..or just plain materialist-folk: they'd Change.

(More words would be superfluous, if this isn't a q.e.d.)
;^>
Expand Edited by Ashton Feb. 27, 2019, 12:03:20 AM EST
     Medicare for (Something) - (Another Scott) - (24)
         ..which kinda makes Bernie The Good Guy™, thus.. - (Ashton) - (23)
             He had 16 co-sponsors in the 115th Congress. - (Another Scott) - (22)
                 Ever thus, that last: but when the near-Future-at-all is at stake? What. Do? (besides cringe) -NT - (Ashton) - (21)
                     Incremental progress is the path forward. It has always been that way. :-) - (Another Scott) - (20)
                         It was.. 'the only way'; with Climate properly addressed.. damn soon- - (Ashton) - (4)
                             Drum makes a decent point re addressing Climate Change/GND - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                 A whopping big carbon tax that mostly hits the affluent - (boxley) - (1)
                                     As usual..l your snark is deflected upon the Rong-target. As usual. As usual. Carrion: it's >Here< -NT - (Ashton)
                                 Apropos.. - (Ashton)
                         Right. That's exactly how we got to the moon. And Medicare. And Medicaid. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                             Yes, exactly. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                 So, all that would have happened without the President's speech? - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                     Counter-factuals are always fun. - (Another Scott) - (11)
                                         I'm well aware that Soviet Russia guided us. - (mmoffitt) - (10)
                                             Re: I'm well aware that Soviet Russia guided us. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                 "For our parents or grandparents"? How old are you? Six? - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                     Heh. - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                         A primary problem with college today is the idiotic notion that everyone should attend. -NT - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                                             Why shouldn't people go to college? - (Another Scott) - (5)
                                                                 I don't think "free" and "free tuition" are the same thing. - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                                                                     You'd like Mike Rowe - (drook) - (3)
                                                                         I came to my view by being a TA. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                                             "Is the wavelength of light bigger than a breadbox?"* - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                 Das Deutschers ..properly? call it a Wissenschafft - (Ashton)

Note for the linguistically-impaired: That was a rhetorical question. (Second note, for the vocabulary-challenged: That means you're not supposed to answer it.)
96 ms