Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
I wasn't unaware of it, but it's still mind-boggling to be reminded that that has been the case for eight years running.
And yes, I do live somewhere where that seems, sorry, aberrant.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is Everyone Off Attending the Inauguration Today?
- Thread starter Chris Coad
- Start date
I wasn't unaware of it, but it's still mind-boggling to be reminded that that has been the case for eight years running.
And yes, I do live somewhere where that seems, sorry, aberrant.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
originally posted by Lou Kessler:
Didn't the supreme court at that time rule the internment of the Japanese was legal?originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Nothing done by the Bush administration is even arguably a grosser constitutional violation than the Japanese internment under FDR.
Whether what either Bush or Nixon did is a grosser constitutional violation, this is surely up there with the worst, I would agree. Like most posters on this board, I think, for the usual cliched reasons, that FDR was among the handful of best Presidents. But there is no doubt that he had an outsized sense of the powers that emergency gave him and, while interning the Japanese was only possible because of a general context of racism that I would surely not blame on the American left, I have no brief for his having done it.
Indeed,and this means at the time it was therefore, ipso facto, constitutional. But the Supreme Court also ruled in Dred Scott that slaves were property and had to be returned to their owners even if they escaped to a free state. Both rulings were disgusting, both have been overturned and any moral opprobrium one wants to cast on Roosevelt for having instituted the policy is just fine by me. Of course, I don't think the position is particularly identified with progressives or progressive Presidents (though there have been plenty of progressive racists) and so I don't think it represents the real reason conservatives consider FDR a bad President.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Lou Kessler:
Didn't the supreme court at that time rule the internment of the Japanese was legal?originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
originally posted by Keith Levenberg:
Nothing done by the Bush administration is even arguably a grosser constitutional violation than the Japanese internment under FDR.
Whether what either Bush or Nixon did is a grosser constitutional violation, this is surely up there with the worst, I would agree. Like most posters on this board, I think, for the usual cliched reasons, that FDR was among the handful of best Presidents. But there is no doubt that he had an outsized sense of the powers that emergency gave him and, while interning the Japanese was only possible because of a general context of racism that I would surely not blame on the American left, I have no brief for his having done it.
Indeed,and this means at the time it was therefore, ipso facto, constitutional. But the Supreme Court also ruled in Dred Scott that slaves were property and had to be returned to their owners even if they escaped to a free state. Both rulings were disgusting, both have been overturned and any moral opprobrium one wants to cast on Roosevelt for having instituted the policy is just fine by me. Of course, I don't think the position is particularly identified with progressives or progressive Presidents (though there have been plenty of progressive racists) and so I don't think it represents the real reason conservatives consider FDR a bad President.
The real reason is that he was seen as a class traitor, and called such.
originally posted by VLM:
The real reason is that he was seen as a class traitor, and called such.
or that he was getting more action than his critics were. In the words of SNL: "Democrats... do it"
Mark Lipton
Carl Steefel
Carl Steefel
I don't see any reason why science is conservative or not. Again, this may be a case of a "conservative" President being associated with a relative neglect of science.
But on the other side, it seems that Obama has gone beyond his liberal colleagues in supporting science. The Secretary of Energy in the Clinton years was nowhere near the level or having the same interest in promoting science as Stephen Chu does, for example.
But on the other side, it seems that Obama has gone beyond his liberal colleagues in supporting science. The Secretary of Energy in the Clinton years was nowhere near the level or having the same interest in promoting science as Stephen Chu does, for example.
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
I don't see any reason why science is conservative or not. Again, this may be a case of a "conservative" President being associated with a relative neglect of science.
Well, the outgoing administration was far more hostile to science than just neglect. In addition to those cases of suppression and modification of research results that the article cites, there was also the unprecedented politicization of the peer review process in various scientific agencies. Political appointees to NIH study sections was unique to Bush II, for instance. However, it would be a mistake IMO to put the blame on Conservatism broadly, as it really reflects the hostility to science that is endemic to the Religious Right.
But on the other side, it seems that Obama has gone beyond his liberal colleagues in supporting science. The Secretary of Energy in the Clinton years was nowhere near the level or having the same interest in promoting science as Stephen Chu does, for example.
Yes, support for science is a nonpartisan issue. Some of the strongest proponents of science in Congress have been Republican (Gingrich, Hatch, Spector). What I find most heartening is Obama's tying of technological progress and education to economic success. This is a well-established correlation that politicians willfully overlook as a rule.
Mark Lipton
Lou Kessler
Lou Kessler
Thanks, for that link. One copy went to S. Yaniger among other people I know.
originally posted by MLipton:
originally posted by Carl Steefel:
I don't see any reason why science is conservative or not. Again, this may be a case of a "conservative" President being associated with a relative neglect of science.
Well, the outgoing administration was far more hostile to science than just neglect. In addition to those cases of suppression and modification of research results that the article cites, there was also the unprecedented politicization of the peer review process in various scientific agencies. Political appointees to NIH study sections was unique to Bush II, for instance. However, it would be a mistake IMO to put the blame on Conservatism broadly, as it really reflects the hostility to science that is endemic to the Religious Right.
No, I think it is endemic to most of America.
What I find most heartening is Obama's tying of technological progress and education to economic success. This is a well-established correlation that politicians willfully overlook as a rule.
Mark Lipton
Bingo. I get so frustrated with the speeches about how "Americans are the hardest working, most inventive people" in the world and this has bee the key to our economic dynamism. Shit, the average American worker isn't even as productive as his French counter-part.
What we have is the best system of research universities in the world. Period, full stop. 20 of the top 50 Universities in the world are in the US (and this over-represents English Universities because the source is the Times of London). The researchers at these institutions are responsible for almost all great advances in our economy. To not acknowledge the role of research in the greater economy is more than just stupid, it is dangerous.
Jonathan Loesberg
Jonathan Loesberg
And let's not forget the large number of nifty literary critics we have here. We are on the cutting edge of that economically vital field and have been since the mid-twentieth century.
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
Shit, the average American worker isn't even as productive as his French counter-part.
I don't think that's true, unless you're measuring productivity per hour worked. So perhaps our French working friends are more efficient, but ultimately not as productive because they work many fewer hours.
Cory Cartwright
Cory Cartwright
Would you have us give our leadership in the production of Foucauldian analyses of the power dynamics implicit in saturday morning cartoons? Let's just stop producing neologisms as well, while we're at it, and double or even triple suffixes, while were at it.
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Shit, the average American worker isn't even as productive as his French counter-part.
I don't think that's true, unless you're measuring productivity per hour worked. So perhaps our French working friends are more efficient, but ultimately not as productive because they work many fewer hours.
Seems to be. Search = Productivity.
Productivity is a rate index, so it measures things as per unit time.
Total output would be what you are talking about.
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Shit, the average American worker isn't even as productive as his French counter-part.
I don't think that's true, unless you're measuring productivity per hour worked. So perhaps our French working friends are more efficient, but ultimately not as productive because they work many fewer hours.
Seems to be. Search = Productivity.
Productivity is a rate index, so it measures things as per unit time.
Total output would be what you are talking about.
Well yes a rate index, as in 'how much an average worker produces in one year.'
Would you have us give our leadership in the production of Foucauldian analyses of the power dynamics implicit in saturday morning cartoons? Let's just stop producing neologisms as well, while we're at it, and double or even triple suffixes, while were at it.
Working on it.
Cory Cartwright
Cory Cartwright
Still better written than Homi Bhabha.originally posted by Thor:
Would you have us give our leadership in the production of Foucauldian analyses of the power dynamics implicit in saturday morning cartoons? Let's just stop producing neologisms as well, while we're at it, and double or even triple suffixes, while were at it.
Working on it.
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Shit, the average American worker isn't even as productive as his French counter-part.
I don't think that's true, unless you're measuring productivity per hour worked. So perhaps our French working friends are more efficient, but ultimately not as productive because they work many fewer hours.
Seems to be. Search = Productivity.
Productivity is a rate index, so it measures things as per unit time.
Total output would be what you are talking about.
Well yes a rate index, as in 'how much an average worker produces in one year.'
Well, no one except you might call GDP per worker productivity. And you're unemployed.
;-)
Note: I had to defy the ban on emoticons because I want to have some fun with Chris, but he is sensitive and I don't want to get into any hair-pulling with him. I even previewed it.
Cory Cartwright
Cory Cartwright
What Obama drank.originally posted by Chris Coad:
Wine Drinkers Back in the White House.
Chris Coad
Chris Coad
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
originally posted by VLM:
originally posted by Chris Coad:
Shit, the average American worker isn't even as productive as his French counter-part.
I don't think that's true, unless you're measuring productivity per hour worked. So perhaps our French working friends are more efficient, but ultimately not as productive because they work many fewer hours.
Seems to be. Search = Productivity.
Productivity is a rate index, so it measures things as per unit time.
Total output would be what you are talking about.
Well yes a rate index, as in 'how much an average worker produces in one year.'
Well, no one except you might call GDP per worker productivity. And you're unemployed.
;-)
Note: I had to defy the ban on emoticons because I want to have some fun with Chris, but he is sensitive and I don't want to get into any hair-pulling with him. I even previewed it.
No, no, I'm fine. I have a tough exterior.
*snf*
Sharon Bowman
Sharon Bowman
originally posted by VLM:
I had to defy the ban on emoticons because I want to have some fun with Chris, but he is sensitive and I don't want to get into any hair-pulling with him. I even previewed it.
He gets all the breaks.
Scott Kraft
Scott Kraft
I don't know about that.