backtop


Print 96 comment(s) - last by kenstech.. on Jun 3 at 2:15 PM


Fermilab, aglow in the night, is a symbol of national pride and a face of U.S. particle physics. However, this lab, like a last old lion, is on the verge of death due to drastic underfunding.  (Source: Fred Ullrich/Fermilab )
Fermi earns a stay-of-execution thanks in part to a generous anonymous philanthropist

Particle physics is one of the most intriguing scientific fields, probing the nature of the very makeup of the universe itself.  However, over the last half decade, due to the growing economic crisis and various items such as war funding taking precedence in government budgets, the budget to help the U.S. stay leaders in the field of particle physics has been slipping.

The U.S. currently is down to only one remaining particle physics lab, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab) in Batavia, Illinois, associated with the University of Chicago and the lab was looking to be on the way out.  It had started in February rolling furlough program that slashed already scarce employee pay by 12.5 percent and forced them to take periodic unpaid leave. 

Now an anonymous donor has stepped in and donated $5M USD to the University of Chicago to try to alleviate these cuts and keep the lab open.  Even with the extremely generous donation the lab is still in trouble.  It plans to lay off 140 employees now, though it would have been an even larger number before the donation.  The donation has allowed the lab to offer voluntary layoffs before the involuntary ones start.

Fermilab Director Piermaria Oddone spoke of the gift stating, "This is very unusual.  It's not a building that carries a name. It's really a commitment to science and the nation and in particular to particle physics as a long-range important undertaking for our nation."

The good news has somewhat buoyed the sunken spirits of physicists at the lab.  Says Consolato Gattuso, an engineering physicist at the lab, "This is definitely a weight that has been lifted.  It gives us some light at the end of the tunnel."

Throughout the last five years, FermiLab's budget has been falling.  The U.S. Congress's last minute budget for 2008 cut FermiLab funding from $372 million requested by the Department of Energy (DOE) to $320 million, $22 million less than the lab had received in 2007.  The lab went into a state of crisis, forcing employees to take one week off unpaid every other month and work shorter hours.  Further, 200 of the lab's 1950 employees were scheduled to be cut.

The U.S. is in a particle physics competition of sorts with Europe to find the legendary Higgs boson particle first.  The cuts will allow Fermi's Tevatron Collider to stay operational, and continue the search.  Researchers remain optimistic that Fermi may find the particle before Europe's CERN lab turns on its more powerful Large Hadron Collider this summer.

Legally, Fermilab cannot officially accept the gift, but it will allow the University of Chicago to contract employees to work in the lab.  Over 50 employees have already left the lab, allowing it to scrape $1M USD in savings.

This is not the first time in recent years that the Congress has chronically underfunded the Department of Energy's physics research labs.  In 2006, Congress gave the Brookhaven National Laboratory in Upton, New York so little money that it would have to shut down its Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider.   James Simons, a theoretical physicist and billionaire hedge-fund guru saved the Collider with a gift of $13M USD.

The officials at Fermi are extremely grateful for a gift, but fear it’s only prolonging the inevitable.  Brendan Casey, a Fermilab particle physicist states, "The grain of salt is that it really does nothing to change the uncertainty with regard to the future.  So there's some relief, but the underlying tension is still there."

The U.S. government may be forced to reevaluate its spending priorities as more experimental physics labs and other science programs go under and U.S. leadership in the sciences slips.  This would truly be an unfortunate loss for the country, most would agree.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$$$
By dickeywang on 6/2/2008 8:21:35 AM , Rating: 5
The morning after Bush had won the 2004 election, my Ph.D. advisor (in theoretical astrophysics) told me that "it will take at least 20-30 years before it can recover from the damages that Bush makes to our research in fundamental science".
The gravitational-wave detector LIGO, which is the biggest project that the National Science Foundation has ever supported, costs less than $400M, on the other hand, the Iraq war is burning more money than this amount in one single day.




RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 8:37:31 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The U.S. Congress's last minute budget for 2008 cut FermiLab funding from $372 million requested by the Department of Energy (DOE) to $320 million, $22 million less than the lab had received in 2007


I believe that the Dems are the majority in congress.


RE: $$$
By dickeywang on 6/2/2008 9:08:22 AM , Rating: 5
From what I read from an open letter sent to all APS members by the American Physical Society Chairman Arthur Bienenstock months ago, the original budget plan passed by the congress proposed an amount larger than the number that President Bush expected, so he threated to veto it therefore the congress had to reduce the number which eventually leads to the funding cut in many field of fundamental science.


RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 9:11:36 AM , Rating: 3
Then how did we get all of that money to drive an RC car on mars again, when we could have just sent this?
http://www.bermuda.ch/balduin/blog/gyromite.jpg


RE: $$$
By dickeywang on 6/2/2008 9:48:06 AM , Rating: 4
Sure, the Mars mission is probably the only science project that President Bush supports, but I think his motivation of doing that is purely political instead of scientific.

Now, Imaging your boss give you some very low budget, and then specifically tells you that one project, which would costs a large amount of $$$, should be done ASAP. What would happen to other projects that you have in hand? This is exactly the problem NASA is facing.

Years ago, I heard some physicists was making fun of the Mars mission by saying that "NASA is going to Mars, so we will never see them again".


RE: $$$
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 10:04:57 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Now, Imaging [sic] your boss give you some very low budget, and then specifically tells you that one project, which would costs a large amount of $$$, should be done ASAP. What would happen to other projects that you have in hand? This is exactly the problem NASA is facing.
Once again, NASA funding has increased considerably under Bush.

Under Clinton, NASA funding declined from $14.3B (1993) down to $13.4B (2000). Under Bush, it went from $13.4B up to $17.2B (2008), nearly a 30% increase.


RE: $$$
By Mitch101 on 6/2/08, Rating: -1
RE: $$$
By TheDoc9 on 6/2/2008 10:48:49 AM , Rating: 3
True that the gov. is terrible at budgeting because everyone wants there cut. But seriously, 320 million dollars is nothing to scoff at. The previous budget was 366, that's only 46 million more and you're telling me that they can't sacrifice a bit?

In any case, in discovering the Higgs Bosen we might shrink the planet into a small ultra dense particle about the size of a pea. /lexx


RE: $$$
By jcrash on 6/2/2008 11:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
In other words, not even enough to cover the increased in their gasoline costs under his administration.

Don't defend him. It is really, really a sad thing to see.


RE: $$$
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 11:22:35 AM , Rating: 1
NASA doesn't spend $4B on gasoline, sorry. And Bush attempted to raise NASA's budget even further. However, Congress complained bitterly over the cost of manned missions to the Moon and Mars, and thus those programs were not funded at appropriate levels.


RE: $$$
By Noya on 6/2/2008 12:25:18 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Under Bush, it went from $13.4B up to $17.2B (2008), nearly a 30% increase.


I haven't looked up inflation numbers, but doesn't that barely cover the loss of USD value since Bush took office?


RE: $$$
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 1:29:25 PM , Rating: 3
> "I haven't looked up inflation numbers, but doesn't that barely cover the loss of USD value since Bush took office? "

If one converts to constant-dollars, the figure represents a 7% rise (i.e. NASA's budget rose 7% faster than inflation over Bush's term in office).

However, if one uses constant-dollars, the figures under Clinton are even more grim, as they represent a 25% decline over the same period.


RE: $$$
By BansheeX on 6/2/2008 1:34:38 PM , Rating: 5
Indeed, the dollar has lost about 40% of its value relative to other currencies in the past eight years.

It's sickening, however, to see disgust with Bush causing people to rationalize that this must mean voting Democrat this time is the correct decision. These two parties are practically the same now with regards to fiscal irresponsibility. Who started NAFTA managed trade? Who started the New Deal programs that are $60,000,000,000,000 underfunded over the next thirty years, even excluding pentagon waste? Who started Vietnam, Korea, Bosnia? All Democrat. Non-intervention is not a part of either platform, they simply take whichever side is politically profitable to get elected.

No, we badly need a libertarian-minded president with a record for cutting waste and ignoring lobbyists. And we're not going to get it, because the American people only try to think hard when it's too late and it hurts. They have the long-term memory of a drugged up lemming.


RE: $$$
By goku on 6/2/2008 2:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Despite me being supportive of a libertarian president, there is a problem. A libertarian president would be cutting funding for NASA and projects such as this as well, even though it would actually benefit us all.


RE: $$$
By ChristopherO on 6/2/2008 3:01:38 PM , Rating: 3
Not true. Ayn Rand loved the space program.


RE: $$$
By Polynikes on 6/2/2008 7:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
I concur.


RE: $$$
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 2:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I haven't looked up inflation numbers


Masher already responded, but I'd suggest you look at the technology component of the CPI. It has been deflationary. Extreme deflation. If NASA has been able to leverage that, I don't know, but thats an indictment of government itself rather than any party if it hasn't been able to.


RE: $$$
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 9:42:13 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"the original budget plan passed by the congress proposed an amount larger than the number that President Bush expected, so he threated to veto it therefore the congress had to reduce the number which eventually leads to the funding cut in many field of fundamental science.
Or Congress could have instead simply shaved a hair off the hugely bloated entitlement programs, rather than cutting fundamental science.

BTW, the "America Competes" bill promoted and signed into law by Bush last year, seeks to double federal spending for the National Science Foundation, the DOE Science Office, and dramatically increases funding for NASA, math, science, and engineering fellowships, and many other programs.


RE: $$$
By bodar on 6/2/2008 9:09:06 AM , Rating: 1
And yet they were not the ones who put us in Iraq. The war isn't financing itself, so maybe it would've been a good idea to not start a conflict that costs us $200 billion per year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/business/17leonh...

Well, I guess it was a good idea if you happen to be in the war infrastructure business...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41318-20...
http://houston.bizjournals.com/houston/stories/200...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A619...


RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 9:16:17 AM , Rating: 4
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Se...

When you vote to send the troops into Iraq, you do put them there.


RE: $$$
RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 9:40:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.


http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/


RE: $$$
By bodar on 6/2/2008 3:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
General Zinni: Obviously, I think you know we went after missile production and missile repair facilities. We went after surface-to-air missile sites. In terms of getting down to individual pieces of equipment, my being able to tell you how many APCs or tanks or FROG missiles or whatever, we don't have that yet. That's part of the sort of more granular assessment that we will have to do. We may never know exactly.

Q: Certainly. But if UNSCOM has said that there's unaccounted inventories of missiles, artillery shells, bombs that they believe are filled with possibly chemical and biological material, did you hit any weapons depots or weapons sites where you believe there was chemical and biological material?

General Zinni: None that we know of. But again, I think you point out the reason why it was important to keep UNSCOM in operation and with full access. The only way we know is through UNSCOM.


Yeah, we blew up their infrastructure, including some SAM sites, ballistic missile production sites, and some "suspected" WMD plants, but we don't know if there was even anything to hit, let alone if we were effective.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript....


RE: $$$
By bodar on 6/2/2008 3:21:31 PM , Rating: 2
And if could don a tinfoil hat for a moment:

quote:
Current events

Less than a month after the movie was released, President Bill Clinton was embroiled in a sex scandal arising from his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Over the course of 1998 and early 1999, as the scandal dominated American politics, the US engaged in three military operations:

* Operation Desert Fox, a three-day bombing campaign in Iraq that took place as the U.S. House of Representatives debated articles of impeachment against Clinton
* Operation Infinite Reach, a pair of missile strikes against suspected terrorist targets in Sudan and Afghanistan three days after Clinton admitted in a nationally televised address that he had an inappropriate relationship with Lewinsky
* Operation Allied Force, a 78-day-long NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia that began weeks after Clinton was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial.

In a further coincidence, the missile strikes against Sudan and Afghanistan were announced by the White House moments before the beginning of a press conference in which Lewinsky was to give details of her appearance before Congress.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wag_the_Dog

Like I said, the Dems are no different.


RE: $$$
By bodar on 6/2/2008 9:29:12 AM , Rating: 3
You know, if I'm being honest, the Dems are no different, they're just on a smaller scale. I hold no illusions to the contrary. Corruption and cronyism are just another day in politics in the US and, I'd wager, all over the world.


RE: $$$
By lifeblood on 6/2/2008 9:12:09 AM , Rating: 3
I believe that the Dems are the majority in congress.

This statement, while true, fails to grasp the workings of our government. The Democrats have a majority in the house but not in the senate and the president is a Republican. If they send a budget to the president and he doesn't sign it they lack the votes for an override. That results in a stalemate that hurts everyone. They have very limited options.

My big complaint is that the writers of the constitution envisioned congress as being the counter weight to the president. The republicans in the congress have been anything but, giving the president everything he wants and looking the other way on anything questionable he does. You saw it during the Clinton years when the Democrats flocked to the presidents defense even though he had lied and cheated, and you see it now with the Republicans.

Where are the statesman our forefathers envisioned? In a country as great as ours I expect much better from our government. Naive, I know.


RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 9:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
Then why is a Democrat the majority leader then?

(This is old news, but you seem to need to catch up)
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/08/election.ma...

The other independent (not Leiberman) is a socialist, which puts him well inside the Democratic party.


RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 1:27:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The republicans in the congress have been anything but, giving the president everything he wants and looking the other way on anything questionable he does.


On the contrary, in "reaching across the isle", Bush did not veto anything that the Democrat congress put forth (only vetoes were for war spending), hence the increase in social spending. To bad the Democrats don't realize they have had a center, and maybe even a center-slightly left president.

Republican and conservative values will reduce spending and government bloat, but this president has behaved like a democrat, more so than a republican.


RE: $$$
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 3:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
You're on the right track lifeblood looking at the constitution, but pointed the finger in the wrong direction, I think.

The constitution is fine, and was fine, until 1860. Northern liberals and southern conservatives fiercely disagreed on the power of the federal government and independence of states. In a pre-1860 world where we tried to strictly follow the constitution, Bush wouldn't likely have the power he does, and Congress wouldn't yield near the influence it does on the common man.

However, we know how the Civil War went. Northern, big-government liberals pervailed, and Lincoln established a strong tradition of entirely ignoring the constitution in the process. The Bill of Rights may as well not have existed, but to draw a parallel with Iraq, it was considered audacious that Lincoln dare raise an army to defend DC without first getting Congress to rubber stamp it. Roosevelt picked up the same ball and ran with it; he made campaign promises that no American boy would die on foreign soil (playing to the isolationist mood) while simultaneously planning how to covertly mobilize for war.

Today, the constitution is a cute formality, for both parties. We could follow it the way the framers intended, but Scalia was interviewed on some left-wing show I came across. The interviewer clearly thought he was a neanderthal for holding an originalist view of the Constitution; she couldn't seem to believe that someone could not buy in to the "living constitution" view, where the meaning of the constitution changes to be whatever the unwashed masses want it to mean on the fly.


RE: $$$
By lifeblood on 6/3/2008 9:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, that fight goes back to the very beginning of our country. Federalists like Alexander Hamilton believed in a strong central (federal) government, while people like Thomas Jefferson believed in a limited central government and a very literal reading of the constitution. Obviously the federalists eventually won.

As with all things, this had both good and bad results. However, I think the end analysis will show it was good for us in the long term. Had the federalists not eventually won we would probably still have Jim Crow laws. And if we can't get a president and congress to agree on a unified policy, how do you expect 51 states (plus assorted territories) to agree on anything? And if you think federal politicians are corrupt, you should take a look at state politics. Local politics are even worse.


RE: $$$
By RjBass on 6/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: $$$
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 9:20:20 AM , Rating: 1
> "my Ph.D. advisor (in theoretical astrophysics) told me that "it will take at least 20-30 years before it can recover from the damages that Bush makes to our research in fundamental science"

Your advisor should stick to subjects he understands. Total R&R funding decreased sharply under Clinton. During Bush's first term in office, R&D funding increased some 30%. It has remained flat his second term in office, but still substantially above the level Clinton left it at.

> "on the other hand, the Iraq war is burning more money than this amount in one single day."

Cost for the Iraq war have averaged some $200B per year, a tiny fraction of the $2.7 trillion we spend annually, by far most of it on Social Security, Medicaire/Medicaid, and other wealth-redistribution programs.


RE: $$$
By lifeblood on 6/2/2008 9:41:19 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have links to back up your statements about science funding? While I don't doubt your statement I do questions what fields that money is going to. I know the money is not going into the earth sciences. I would be interested to see where the money is going. Also, Clinton may have left science funding at low levels but he also left a(n arguably) balanced budget and gas around a dollar a gallon.

I find it humorous that the two recent presidents who raged against big government spending, George W and Reagan, also racked up the biggest deficits.


RE: $$$
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 9:46:50 AM , Rating: 3
> "Do you have links to back up your statements about science funding? "

Certainly. The chart below is expressed as a percentage of GDP, however the conversion to real funding (should you prefer that) is straightforward:

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guihist.htm


RE: $$$
By lifeblood on 6/2/2008 10:47:41 AM , Rating: 1
Thank you for the link. It was informative, and as I read it, served to back up my earlier statements. The increased funding was being spent on weapons systems and manned space flight.

quote:
the federal R&D investment exceeded 1 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) until recently, buoyed by big increases in weapons development, but is now declining sharply. Federal investments in development, mostly in DOD, have held steady as a share of the economy, but the federal research/GDP ratio is in free fall down to a projected 0.38 percent in 2009, below the long-term historical average of 0.4 percent after gains in the late 1990s.


It also very clearly demonstrates your earlier comments, Clinton was not at all financially supportive of the sciences (but give the devil his due, he did get us a balanced budget as a result).


RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 11:07:58 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
(but give the devil his due, he did get us a balanced budget as a result).


quote:
1993 -- the year of the giant Clinton tax hike -- was not the turning point in the deficit wars, either. In fact, in 1995, two years after that tax hike, the budget baseline submitted by the president's own Office of Management and Budget and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted $200 billion deficits for as far as the eye could see. The figure shows the Clinton deficit baseline. What changed this bleak outlook?

Newt Gingrich and company -- for all their faults -- have received virtually no credit for balancing the budget. Yet today's surplus is, in part, a byproduct of the GOP's single-minded crusade to end 30 years of red ink. Arguably, Gingrich's finest hour as Speaker came in March 1995 when he rallied the entire Republican House caucus behind the idea of eliminating the deficit within seven years.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5656


RE: $$$
By dickeywang on 6/2/2008 10:13:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
During Bush's first term in office, R&D funding increased some 30%. It has remained flat his second term in office, but still substantially above the level Clinton left it at.

Sure it was increased during Bush's first term, Clinton left $550B+ surplus when he left the office. Plus, if you ask anyone who's working in the fundamental science, physics, math, chemistry, etc, they would tell you that it is much more difficult to get funding in the last 3-4 years.
quote:
Cost for the Iraq war have averaged some $200B per year, a tiny fraction of the $2.7 trillion we spend annually, by far most of it on Social Security, Medicaire/Medicaid, and other wealth-redistribution programs.

Well, $200B sounds not that much comparing to the total amount of money that we spend annually, but most part of the annual spending are difficult to avoid whatsoever (can you layoff all the police in all cities?). Don't blame that much about medicare, social security, etc, It was pointed out that we only need $35B to have universal per-school education for 3-4-year-old. After all, the point is that the $200B/yr is something that we could've avoid!


RE: $$$
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 10:25:37 AM , Rating: 2
> "Sure it was increased during Bush's first term, Clinton left $550B+ surplus "

Ah, so despite the fact that Clinton dramaticaly cut R&D spending while Bush raised it, Clinton is the one who truly supported the sciences? I'm sorry, but your bias is showing.

> "Plus, if you ask anyone who's working in the fundamental science, physics, math, chemistry, etc, they would tell you that it is much more difficult to get funding in the last 3-4 years."

Ah, the logical fallacy of the anecdotal example makes its appearance. The fact remains that R&D spending has increased considerably, and Bush's recent signing of the "America Competes" law will raise it far higher still.

By the way, when I was in graduate school nearly 20 years ago, everyone all had the same complaints about funding being "so much harder to come by than it used to". It's basic human nature to idealize the past.

> "It was pointed out that we only need $35B to have universal per-school education for 3-4-year-old."

I'm not quite sure was "universal per-school" education is, nor why a 3 year old would need it...but it sounds quite socialistic. I'm sure we're better off without it. Anyone with the slightest bit of will in America today can already get a college education, no matter how poor their parents are.


RE: $$$
By sundev on 6/2/2008 10:39:24 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ah, the logical fallacy of the anecdotal example makes its appearance.

quote:
By the way, when I was in graduate school nearly 20 years ago, everyone all had the same complaints

Ah, the logical fallacy of pointing out a logical fallacy and then using it in the next sentence.


RE: $$$
By smitty3268 on 6/2/2008 11:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm not quite sure was "universal per-school" education is, nor why a 3 year old would need it...but it sounds quite socialistic.

It's basically free day care. Which isn't quite as socialist as it sounds, after all the mothers who are getting this service are then freed up to work - right now day care costs are high enough that most people figure they would only break even working if they had to pay for daycare.

Still, I don't really support it. In my mind it has to be better for those kids to stay at home with a parent than shipped off to some other place.


RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: $$$
By smitty3268 on 6/2/2008 3:54:39 PM , Rating: 3
Oh, come on now. Pre-school = fascism? Do you realize how silly you sound?

If that's facist, then so is high school and college. And pretty much every single other government program, conservative or liberal.


RE: $$$
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 6:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Pre-School doesn't equal fascism. The federal government is getting way to involved. I was placing this program in light of all of the others. Government provided lunches. Then Breakfast. After school programs providing meals. The government will take care of your child 12 hours a day, and will expose them to what they believe is appropriate.

quote:
"I'm transgender. You probably have no idea what I'm talking about. I guess I'm going to have to explain it to everyone in the school," Caleb, 17, recounted. "I'm going to use the men's bathroom this year, so we need to figure something out."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch...
quote:
A transgender child in Florida, genetically a boy, will be admitted to kindergarten this fall as a girl

http://www.gay.com/news/article.html?2006/07/11/3

At least we are dealing with the important things instead of math and science.

And before all of the sensitive people rate me down, I don't care what gets you off. But why does a groups sexual preference have to change society. I don't consider it my personal crusade to let everyone else know what my sick little fantasies are, and then ask them to approve. Let children be children as long as they can, that's all.


RE: $$$
By mezman on 6/2/2008 1:24:59 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds like part of your prof's complaint had a lot more to do with political affiliation and less to do with real concerns over funding to me.


RE: $$$
By kenstech on 6/3/2008 2:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
If it's not the war on on the "axis of evil" it is a war on some social policy.

Democrat or Republican, its all the same.

The stupid war in Iraq would have happened no matter which party was in the White House (google "Project for the New American Century"), just as stupid social programs have grown beyond our ability to pay for them no matter who is in the White House.

Stop focusing on one man or one party. It's the system as a whole that is corrupt and incorrigible.

Ken
www.kenstech.com


Priorities
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 8:04:53 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah I guess things like trying to bail out homeowners who make bad decisions is far more important than a) keeping people employed and b) keeping this nations research into experimental science going.

And universities wonder why enrollment into engineering and scientific fields is drastically down.




RE: Priorities
By Amiga500 on 6/2/2008 8:14:39 AM , Rating: 1
Or what about sending troops out half way around the world where they were neither wanted or needed?

There are a load of things the US govt can be criticised for.

I would tend to criticise them for the shit decisions that interfered directly with other countries rather than the shit decisions that interfered only with their own.


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 9:13:20 AM , Rating: 2
Not wanted? Yeah if I was Saddam or his troops I wouldn't have wanted them there either.

Not needed? That's a matter of opinion. I'm sure the people in Iraq who actually have a choice of how they live their lives disagree.


RE: Priorities
By OrSin on 6/2/2008 9:36:10 AM , Rating: 2
In Saddam 20 years in power I think the people felt alot safer before we come in. This war have killed over 100000 Iraq. Sorry but Saddam was bad dictor, but at aleast he was a much more stablizing force then we are. And Iraq's dont want us there.


RE: Priorities
By Hulk on 6/2/2008 10:21:42 AM , Rating: 1
Hitler would have been more "stabilizing" to the world if he conquered it also.

Most of the conflicts since WWII would have been avoided.

Your statement is ridiculous. And the fact that you have time to BS around in forums (and complain about the governement( means that you have a pretty damn good life thanks to the hundreds of thousands of Americans that have died for your right to float through life and complain about the price of freedom not being free. Please think about it.


RE: Priorities
By smitty3268 on 6/2/2008 11:23:11 AM , Rating: 2
Comparing Saddam and Hitler is the ridiculous statement here. One was attempting to conquer the world, and the other hadn't done anything in over a decade and was pretty clearly incapable of threatening us.

Not that he was a good guy, or anything. If he had the power for all I know he could have ended up being worse than Hitler. But claiming he had the same destabilizing ability Hitler did is utter nonsense.

There have been polls which said flat out that the Iraqi people preferred life under Saddam Hussein than what came after, mostly because they had a much lower chance of being kidnapped by criminals or blown up by terrorists.

However, I believe those polls came at the height of violence and I haven't heard of any since the surge started to calm things down, so it may not be accurate anymore.


RE: Priorities
By Pottervilla on 6/2/2008 11:19:23 AM , Rating: 3
"at least fifty thousand rural Kurds ... died in Anfal alone, and very possibly the real figure was twice that number ... All told, the total number of Kurds killed over the decade since the Barzani men were taken from their homes is well into six figures."
http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html

"documented civilian deaths from violence" Avg. 88,000
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Saddam killed more than the war does. And if any of the theories are correct about his connections with the very terrorists that are killing now, he was even worse than the statistics show.

Admitedly, Iraqi's are ready for us to go, but not because they dislike us; they fear that are presence is encouraging the rebels.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson

"The jaws of power are always open to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing." - John Adams

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Winston Churchill


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 11:59:59 AM , Rating: 3
Ah so because he kept the secretarian violence in check, its ok that he killed tens of thousands of innocents?


RE: Priorities
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 1:33:04 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
secretarian violence


How violent does it get in the corporate world, and what do these administrative assistants want?


RE: Priorities
By Lord 666 on 6/2/2008 9:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
That is a very short sighted view of Iraq.

Admittedly, I had that view back in 2003/2004, but now view it as a brilliant positioning and tremendous foresight on the US government. With Russia and Venezula potentially scaling back oil and rumors of the Saudi's running out, Uncle Sam needed to secure the second largest oil source by any means possible.

When McCain said we will be there for another 100 years, it's the truth... but only because thats when the oil will run out.


RE: Priorities
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 11:19:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is a very short sighted view of Iraq.


That sums up your views well. We did not take over Iraq. We are leaving whenever the Iraqi government asks us to.

McCain said
quote:
Last month, at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire, a crowd member asked McCain about a Bush statement that troops could stay in Iraq for 50 years.
"Maybe 100," McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day."


Another way to think of it is our current "occupation" of Japan or Germany.


RE: Priorities
By Lord 666 on 6/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: Priorities
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 1:18:38 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't say a prerequisite was world domination, just comparing that we have troops in other countries for many years, much like we might end up with in Iraq. If you you don't believe the US is a positive influence and a beacon in the world, then you don't appreciate all the US has accomplished.

Notice I didn't say America is perfect, but our ideals and the American way (i.e. hard work = opportunity to advance) vs socialism and communism (entitlement and equal distribution regardless of skills and drive - except for the ruling class) is what makes people believe in America.

But some Americans become complacent too quickly, and don't appreciate what the generations before us went through. And they didn't do it so the government could take care of our every need from cradle to grave.


RE: Priorities
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2008 1:21:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I don't remember the Iraq government inviting us.


Government ? Ahh, you meant dictatorship right ?


RE: Priorities
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 1:26:19 PM , Rating: 3
> "With Japan and Germany, they attacked other countries"

Iraq also attacked Iran, as well as our allies Kuwait and Israel. The attack on Kuwait alone was enough to justify invasion, as Iraq never acceded to the terms of the original armistice it signed.

> "If it were not about oil, then why do we have profit sharing agreements with Iraq?"

If it were simply about oil, why does the US not attack Venezuela, Nigeria, Oman, Mexico, or any of the other dozens of nations which export oil? If it were about oil, why does the US allow Iraq to sell its oil on the open market (most of which goes to other nations) rather than simply keeping it for itself?


RE: Priorities
By Lord 666 on 6/2/2008 2:15:50 PM , Rating: 1
But the US never invaded Baghdad until 2003 with those events occuring in the 80's and 90's.

It's just easier to occupy countries under the guise of chasing "terrorists" than flat out invading Venezuela or Nigeria. If we were to attack Venezuela, Iran has already pleged to start war with us. Iraq was just low hanging fruit. Chavez has already voiced his concern stating the US will invade.

Actually, there are profit sharing agreements in place where the US in generating income. A hot political topic is the increased revenue on the open market, but the US govt is still rebuilding infrastructure with US dollars.


RE: Priorities
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 2:27:22 PM , Rating: 3
> "But the US never invaded Baghdad until 2003 with those events occuring in the 80's and 90's."

So? The US gave Iraq a full decade to comply. That's more than generous....and there is no legal doctrine of laches ("expiration time") in such matters.

> "Chavez has already voiced his concern stating the US will invade."

I'm sorry, but you've just lost all credibility with that statement.


RE: Priorities
By Lord 666 on 6/2/2008 2:53:15 PM , Rating: 1
How was credibility lost when US citizens and media figures have publically called for his assassination - a religious figure included? (Pat Robertson)


RE: Priorities
By elgueroloco on 6/2/2008 3:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
Just because Chavez says he's afraid that the US will invade Venezuela doesn't mean there is even a grain of truth to it. Chavez will say anything to make us look bad. Accepting him as a valid source of info loses you credibility, since neither you nor Chavez have any actual evidence that the US has even thought about invading Venezuela.

Aside from Pat Retardson, I haven't heard anybody calling for Chavez's assassination. Haven't heard word one about that from our gov't. And even if an assassination were being considered, that's still a far cry from invasion.

Now, if you have some credible sources you could cite, then this Venezuelan invasion business might possibly be believed.


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 2:42:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Why does the US have military installations in Saudia Arabia if we have never been attacked by them either?


Uh because the Saudi's want us there. We offer them protection. They offer us oil. At least that was the arrangement. Now I'm for us pulling our troops out considering they're not living up to their end of the bargain.


RE: Priorities
By Spuke on 6/2/2008 3:54:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why does the US have military installations in Saudia Arabia if we have never been attacked by them either?
Saudi's asked us to be there. How else could we have gotten there? Did we sneak the bases across the border in the middle of the night then plant a flag and tell everyone this is our land now? Your arguments are atypical of a person that CANNOT think for themselves and is driven by fear.


RE: Priorities
By Lord 666 on 6/2/2008 4:33:59 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed... my logic and rational ARE atypical. Read my lead off post; I think our country setting up camp in Iraq was brilliant. However, I cannot claim to have always view it that way, but only as certain geopolitical events have happened it completely logical.


RE: Priorities
By onwisconsin on 6/2/2008 8:20:57 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed...no one, NO ONE that makes the laws aren't doing the right thing. It's like they really don't care. Both parties seem to "patch up" or put a bandage over the leak instead of looking at the real problems like education


RE: Priorities
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/2/2008 8:54:11 AM , Rating: 5
Education is what it is. If laws didn't prevent teachers for throwing disruptive or pain in the ass students out of class things might be better off for the real students. The problems start at home, with pain in the ass kids who do whatever the hell they want (why we allow kids to believe this is beyond me) the further passing of laws to prevent any sort of discipline by parents further exacerbates the problem.

Want to fix it?
-Allow parents to raise their kids the way they see fit. (I could give 2 shits less if parent A spanks their kid for being a screwup, he deserves to know that being a screwup comes with harsh consequences). Ironically if they pull this as an adult they are punished accordingly (fired, jailed, etc...).
-Stop falsely believing that we should cater to the lowest denominator. If child A excels, and child B is mentally deficient, move child B to a slow class and move child A to an advanced class. Not all people are created equally, and nobody develops equally. The current stupidity of throwing kids with advanced learning capability in with kids who will end up flipping burgers since they can't get beyond basic mathematics is stupid. It only serves to hurt the kid who is capable while merely appeasing the kid who will never cut it. Yea, I know the parents (and lawyers they employ) are largely to blame for this, but its time laws were passed to stop this from happening. We also need to fail these students who do not measure up. If you can not complete the work required at the grade level your in, you fail and will repeat. You will continue to repeat until you either drop out or get it right. Passing students because they "improved" or "because we don't want them developing social stigmas that come with being held back" is absolute bollocks.
-Put more emphasis on the math/science courses. Stop asking what people "feel" about the problem and get down to "solve it, period, end of discussion". Problemsolving is a primary skill that is sorely lacking in most kids coming out of high school/college. Without the ability to problemsolve you generally don't do well in Math/Science/IT/Engineering, etc... but you can do just fine as a teacher/administrator/etc... it is also generally accepted that Math/Science/IT/Engineering fields are harder to prepare for, harder to perform (the work you do and the level you do it on typically requires higher level thought unseen in most other professions).

There, education problem solved. Instead of babysitting, we are instead cultivating the best/brightest and weeding out the losers who won't cut it. Yea, so the losers will be condemned to low paying or mediocre jobs for the rest of their lives. They end up there anyways, jamming them through the education system and doing damage to more capable students in the process is not helping anyone. We also put emphasis on important stuff. Business majors are not all that important. I can throw a brick and hit 15 in any direction. I can throw that same brick and hit only 1 or 2 Math/IT/Science/Engineers. There's also the steady rise in legal majors (which provide no input to society) which is further helping the decline in mental capabilities across the country.

For those that work in (and are good at) Math/Science/IT/Engineering, have no fear, jobs are plentiful and pay well. Other professions may or may not enjoy such things in the future.


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 9:20:58 AM , Rating: 3
Well Said!

And I plan to spank my kids regardless of what any law says. But I don't know any state where its illegal to. And the federal government hasn't gone that far yet(but I believe theres a few Democrats proposing legislation to make it illegal right now). As far as I'm concerned, if my kids hate me so much as to complain to the authorities, they can take the walk out of my home(they'll be back). My mom told me at age 10 if I didn't like the way things were in our house, "theres the door and don't let it hit you on the way out". I plan to do the same.

I turned out to be a productive member of society. The same can't be said for a lot of kids who's parents let them do whatever they want.


RE: Priorities
By JTankers on 6/2/2008 10:12:46 AM , Rating: 1
A bit off topic, but I live in Wisconsin and I believe (not verified) that spanking may be illegal here even when it is the parents doing the spanking, though unlikely to be forced to any large degree. I do know that it is rare here, and it is actually possible to raise kids without spanking. We don't spank and I think our kids respect us more for it, but it takes a lot more time and energy and emotional knowledge devoted to your kids...

But that is not why I am here, I want you to read what is going on at <a href="http://www.LHCFacts.org">LHCFacts.org</a>


RE: Priorities
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/2/2008 10:33:45 AM , Rating: 3
I've heard of the mini-black hole scare tactic before. It's nothing more than a scare tactic. Ignore it and proceed forward.


RE: Priorities
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 10:39:57 AM , Rating: 2
You can tell a child how hot something is, but for some reason it really sinks in when they touch a hot stove, for example.

Spanking also prepares your kids for dodgeball in school, but since they don't allow that anymore, i guess it makes it less necessary.


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 12:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I learned the lesson of "Don't touch that its hot!" when I stuck my hand in a pot of boiling water.

I learned the lesson of don't stick a fork in a light socket when I did that as well.

There's very few lessons I'd rather my kids learn by me telling them than them trying it themselves. Don't look down the barrel of a gun, don't play with chainsaws, don't smoke crack....


RE: Priorities
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 1:00:50 PM , Rating: 2
I say that disproves darwins theory right there.


RE: Priorities
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2008 1:53:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I plan to spank my kids regardless of what any law says.


Plan on it ? Hell, I'm looking FORWARD to it !


RE: Priorities
By FITCamaro on 6/2/2008 2:46:03 PM , Rating: 2
Well then maybe you're one who shouldn't. :)

(Yes I know/hope it was just a joke).

In seriousness though, I hope I never have to spank my kids. I hope they're good without me having to punish them. But I know thats likely just a dream. And to me punishment is not "go to your room". Kids understand spanking. No psychologist is going to convince me that my kids will learn to like being spanked. Thats later in life. ;)


RE: Priorities
By elgueroloco on 6/2/2008 1:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
I totally agree with this. "No Child Left Behind" actually means "No Child Gets Ahead," because it mandates that education proceed at the rate of the slowest pupils. Because some kids have less, others are forbidden to have more. In other words, NCLB=academic communism.


RE: Priorities
By djc208 on 6/2/2008 2:49:47 PM , Rating: 2
All good points. I'd add the cultural stigma against being a "nerd". Why do we idolize sports stars over scientists. You have whole generations of kids who dream of being a basketball/football/baseball/sports star. While the scientists and engineers are practically considered social rejects.

How much time and energy do people waste on what star did what, which team won which game, and who's dating whom? If even a small percentage of that energy was directed at sites like this we might have more interest in funding places like the above.

I'm sorry but the scientists and engineers of the world have done a lot more good for society than every sports hero and pop star combined.


RE: Priorities
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2008 5:10:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All good points. I'd add the cultural stigma against being a "nerd". Why do we idolize sports stars over scientists. You have whole generations of kids who dream of being a basketball/football/baseball/sports star. While the scientists and engineers are practically considered social rejects.


Gee thats a tough one. One path leads to riches, fame, fortune and hot women. The other path leads to going to school for 12 years only to end up at a physics labs thats threatening to be shut down. With very little to show for it besides personal satisfaction. And thats not even a given. The stigma of the typical engineer or scientist being overworked, underpaid and seldom laid sure isn't helping matters.

quote:
How much time and energy do people waste on what star did what, which team won which game, and who's dating whom? If even a small percentage of that energy was directed at sites like this we might have more interest in funding places like the above.


Not sure where your going with this besides some extremely idealist point. So you mean if I don't watch football this season I'll suddenly pick up nuclear physics and thermodynamics and help fund labs like this one ? Seriously, what are you even talking about ? DAMN those people trying to find entertainment !!! They should be funding the sciences !!!

Since you like pointing fingers. Why are you wasting all this " time and energy " posting on the Internet ? Huh ? Go out there and fund some sciences you slacker !!!

quote:
I'm sorry but the scientists and engineers of the world have done a lot more good for society than every sports hero and pop star combined.


True. So whats your point ?

I guess I would point out that without the huge tax revenue that professional sporting teams and the movie industry bring into the economy, the sciences budget would be a lot smaller...but nah. Never mind.


RE: Priorities
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 7:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The other path leads to going to school for 12 years only to end up at a physics labs thats threatening to be shut down. With very little to show for it besides personal satisfaction. And thats not even a given. The stigma of the typical engineer or scientist being overworked, underpaid and seldom laid sure isn't helping matters.


Well, okay. That's if you go the full PhD route and then choose to live on government cheese, a life of academics.

People that get science degrees and engineering degrees and then go and get real jobs in the private sector make more money than any other type of college graduate. Yes, lawyers can make a pretty penny, and some doctors do well, but in both fields wage growth hasn't been keeping up with inflation, while engineers earnings have been surging.

That makes the lack of engineers almost puzzling, because asides from the elite few who become sports stars, the majority of engineers are really the ones in America bringing home the bacon! If a hot little education major mama wants to snag a husband, she'd be best off hanging around the engineering departments of campus rather then just about anywhere else.

At least, if I was a hoe, that'd be my hunting ground.


RE: Priorities
By MrJim on 6/3/2008 4:28:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by FITCamaro on June 2, 2008 at 8:04 AM...And universities wonder why enrollment into engineering and scientific fields is drastically down.


Its because today the kids learn that being famous is cool and being smart is not cool. That´s the problem.


Good Funding News, But Where is the Safety?
By JTankers on 6/2/2008 10:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
I am very happy to hear that science is getting more funding. It actually needs much more so that we can devote proper funds to proving the perhaps less glamorous task of proving reasonable safety.

Safety study is absolutely necessary when some very eminent scientists such as the inventor of Chaos theory's Rossler attractor are very concerned that we might rush into our own destruction because we don't take risk analysis seriously.

Is the following article of the day at LHCFacts.org fair, "Culture of Superiority?" about cultural differences that might be an impediment to analysis and communication of risks... It also speaks of the apparent use of educated betting odds to justify experiments that might end the human race... Is that reasonable?

http://www.lhcfacts.org/?p=34

Did you know:

The LHC Safety Assessment Group (LSAG) agreed with us that if cosmic rays produce micro black holes, they will be relativistic and travel too fast to be captured by Earth's gravity, whereas if LHC head-on particle collisions produces micro black holes they will be non-relativistic with some that can be captured gravitationally, either by the Earth, or by the Sun.

LSAG is also not assuming Hawking Radiation is valid in their new safety study.

Have you heard these quotes:

“ …after 50 months the earth to a centimeter would have shrunk. It would be nothing more there, not only no more life, there but also the earth would be… a small black hole.
-Prof. Dr. Otto E. Rossler

“ … the scientists are fully aware that it is not a project without a grave risk to the life of the Earth.”
-Dr. Raj Baldev

LHCFacts.org




By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 10:34:03 AM , Rating: 2
FYI, Rossler is a bit of a quack with no formal training in physics. His "eminence" in this field is nonexistent.


RE: Good Funding News, But Where is the Safety?
By JTankers on 6/2/2008 5:13:39 PM , Rating: 2
Actually even the anti-delay, no transparent review supporters call Prof. Dr. Otto Rossler eminent and distinguished . His abilities are well proven and they do include significant particle physics work. Look at his bio on Wikipedia and Scholarpedia.

Also so far, Dr. Rossler is the only scientist that has published Earth accretion math for peer review. This is a summary of what Dr. Rossler believes may happen (posted at LHCFacts.org > The Scientists > Comments:

"Rossler’s idea is that when a MBH accretes a charged particle, say electron, this will not go straight into the MBH, but will circulate around the MBH for a while, and by doing this, a magnetic field will be created which will attract positive and negative charged particles, each at the opposite poles of the MBH, thus accelerating the accretion rate."

Some links to Prof. Dr. Otto E. Rossler and his distinguished work (Dr. Rossler is extremely credible).

http://www.golem.de/0802/57477.html
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/User:Rossler
http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/OTTOROES...


By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 5:54:07 PM , Rating: 2
> "Look at his bio on Wikipedia and Scholarpedia"

You mean his bio written by random passerbys, fans, his own family members, and likely even you yourself?

I repeat my comments. Rossler has no credentials in high-energy physics or even physics at all; his refereed publications appear to be almost entirely in chaos mathematics and/or biology.

As for your own comments, I can only assume you're the same JTankers posting rudely truculent scientific fallacies all over the same "lhcfacts" website that regurgitates Rossler's arguments, forgive me if I take your comments with a grain of salt.


By Strunf on 6/2/2008 1:34:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure many scientists weren't that happy with nuclear research either and yet man got with it an energy source that could make our life better along with greatly reducing pollution and others...


Sensationalistic?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/2/2008 10:16:15 AM , Rating: 3
Come on Jason. Fermilab's budget in 2003 was $284M. Its budget today is $320M...considerably less than the lab had requested, but still substantially above what it what funded at just five years earlier. I don't think that qualifies as emperiling the lab to "go under". Nor, even were that to be the case, would this minute $5M private donation be enough to prevent it.




RE: Sensationalistic?
By Pottervilla on 6/2/2008 11:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
But is that adjusted for inflation and/or increased energy costs? Don't collider's use a lot of energy?
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080417/i...

quote:
Even with the extremely generous donation the lab is still in trouble.


RE: Sensationalistic?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2008 1:38:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree.

How did they blow though 320 million to the point where a measly 5 million is going to " save the lab " ?


Facts?
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 9:05:25 AM , Rating: 4
Can you actually spend the time to find out why the cuts were made, instead of blaming the war and Bad economy (A.K.A. Bush)?
quote:
However, over the last half decade, due to the growing economic crisis and various items such as war funding taking precedence in government budgets


How about too much social programs or welfare?

Just print and throw a dart at this, but them you might not hit the big bad military.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_budget_2007....

Let's try to educate when we report, too much B.S. out there. And the economy may not be great, but we have still had positive growth even though most news organizations have been saying the sky is falling since before Christmas in hopes to scare people into a worse economy.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/30/business/30econ....




RE: Facts?
By Ringold on 6/2/2008 3:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad I'm not the only one at DT that noticed the practical 50% upward revision in Q1 GDP!

As far as "economic crisis", if this had been a recession we should be shedding 250-300k jobs a month, not practically flat numbers. That 5.0% was just a handful of workers short of being rounded down to 4.9% instead of 5.0% anyway; that we are shedding a small number of jobs while seeing shrinking unemployment suggests that what many have been saying for a while has been true; we were at full employment, and now the least-productive employees are getting booted out of the labor force. Those employees are people that don't need to be in the workforce anyway, as their low productivity is inflationary.

Regardless, I don't see why people even bring up the economy and Iraq. It's a false dilemma. The government funds many things simultaneously; it's not a zero-sum game. We went to the Moon while paying for Vietnam. We can fund anything we want to pay for. Iraq is tiny compared to the total vast size of the federal budget, and it's also short-term, as opposed to most government programs which are essentially immortal.


Attention Libs
By Reclaimer77 on 6/2/2008 1:29:05 PM , Rating: 3
Could we just have ONE Daily Tech article where you guys didn't turn the discussion into some totally unrelated Iraq/Bush/America bash ?? Please ??




RE: Attention Libs
By straycat74 on 6/2/2008 1:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
no.


Damn government
By DigitalFreak on 6/2/2008 8:59:56 AM , Rating: 2
Science > War




:(
By Inspector Jihad on 6/2/2008 8:27:47 AM , Rating: 1
shit like this makes me sad. and people wonder why we're losing ground to the asians and the europeans.




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki