In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 09 2015 13:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Get ready for an embarrassing number of years for this country.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today announced who will chair its subcommittees in the 114th Congress. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will chair the subcommittee that oversees NASA, while Marco Rubio (R-FL) will chair the one with jurisdiction over NOAA.
The Senate is now in Republican hands, so all committee and subcommittee chairs are Republican and ranking members are Democrats (though there are two Independents, who usually vote with Democrats, who might also hold committee leadership positions). The full Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is chaired by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who announced the six subcommittee chairs today. The two of most interest to the space policy community are the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, which includes NOAA, and the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, which includes NASA and added "competitiveness" to its title this year.
Cruz was the top Republican on the Science and Space subcommittee last year, so his ascension to chair is not unexpected. He did not play a prominent public role in NASA matters in the last Congress, and is known mostly for his advocacy of reduced government spending overall and opposition to almost anything that the Obama Administration supports. Bill Nelson (D-FL) chaired the subcommittee in the previous Congress, when it was controlled by Democrats, and is an ardent NASA supporter, having flown on the space shuttle in 1986 when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. Nelson is now the top Democrat on the full Senate Commerce Committee.
Like Cruz, Rubio was the top Republican on the Oceans/Atmosphere subcommittee in the last Congress and now becomes chair. All of NOAA's activities are within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee and historically it has focused more on fisheries and coastal issues than on space.
Not sure how I should feel. Bill Nelson was a little too in love with the space shuttle, which was a pretty bad program. But I can't imagine Ted Cruz being good for NASA either. Hopefully since he didn't do much about NASA in the past, he will continue to mostly ignore it and let other people run it.
On January 09 2015 13:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 09 2015 13:02 Millitron wrote:
On January 09 2015 12:52 zlefin wrote: It does sound somewhat sloppy to write a law and not be more familiar with the topic. That said, there are experts around to review these things, and make sure the terms are used correctly in the legislation. I'd also note that while assault weapons may see some use in mass shootings, their overall contribution to criminal homicides is low; while their usefulness as a defense against potential government tyranny (one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment), is quite clear. Whereas handguns are not so useful in such a fight, but are the primary contributor to criminal actions with guns.
Even if there are experts around to be sure the words are used correctly, it doesn't matter if the legislators who vote on them don't know the words. So sure, the law makes grammatical sense, and you're less likely to end up with outright contradictions if you have experts review the laws, but that doesn't mean they make any more sense.
All a barrel shroud is is a plastic tube that goes around the barrel so you don't burn your hand if you brush up against it. Does that sound like a cop-killing baby-seeking murder device that needs to be banned to anyone?
It sounds like one of three things happened. Either there weren't experts around in the committee that wrote the law, there wasn't any expert testimony in the session that passed the bill, or simply a lot of legislators were absent/asleep during the expert testimony. None of which are encouraging.
See while I agree the shroud issue is silly. That's also part of my point. It's not really going to be a big deal one way or the other.
NOAA and NASA that's important stuff that anti science people should not be in charge of.
Things being banned for absolutely no reason is always a big deal, regardless of how unimportant the banned thing is. I agree that the underlying disease is that legislators have no responsibility to not be complete morons, but that doesn't mean that the symptoms are any less important.
If it's about banning things for basically no reason (I can imagine why they wanted to ban them) than Cannabis sits higher for me personally. That ban has actually already ruined peoples lives by the millions and continues to ruin lives and families every day.
Beyond that they are banning something with a practical and helpful purpose as opposed to something that is pretty pointless in general (talking about shrouds and bayonets and stuff like that).
You can't find one person who has a clue about cannabis who supports it being banned. Yet here we sit with people going to prison to enforce a ban no one can explain with any semblance of facts.
Well, I wouldn't say that barrel shrouds are pointless. It doesn't take much shooting before a barrel gets too hot to touch comfortably. Barrel shrouds are pretty nice to have if you don't want to burn your hands.
But I agree that the ban on Cannabis is phenomenally stupid. The whole War on Drugs really.
It's not even just about the particular things being banned though. I don't care that much what thing in particular is being banned, I'm mostly upset that they can get away with legislating about things they have no comprehension of. It's disgusting.
On January 09 2015 13:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Get ready for an embarrassing number of years for this country.
The Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee today announced who will chair its subcommittees in the 114th Congress. Ted Cruz (R-TX) will chair the subcommittee that oversees NASA, while Marco Rubio (R-FL) will chair the one with jurisdiction over NOAA.
The Senate is now in Republican hands, so all committee and subcommittee chairs are Republican and ranking members are Democrats (though there are two Independents, who usually vote with Democrats, who might also hold committee leadership positions). The full Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee is chaired by Sen. John Thune (R-SD), who announced the six subcommittee chairs today. The two of most interest to the space policy community are the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard, which includes NOAA, and the Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, which includes NASA and added "competitiveness" to its title this year.
Cruz was the top Republican on the Science and Space subcommittee last year, so his ascension to chair is not unexpected. He did not play a prominent public role in NASA matters in the last Congress, and is known mostly for his advocacy of reduced government spending overall and opposition to almost anything that the Obama Administration supports. Bill Nelson (D-FL) chaired the subcommittee in the previous Congress, when it was controlled by Democrats, and is an ardent NASA supporter, having flown on the space shuttle in 1986 when he was a Member of the House of Representatives. Nelson is now the top Democrat on the full Senate Commerce Committee.
Like Cruz, Rubio was the top Republican on the Oceans/Atmosphere subcommittee in the last Congress and now becomes chair. All of NOAA's activities are within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee and historically it has focused more on fisheries and coastal issues than on space.
Not sure how I should feel. Bill Nelson was a little too in love with the space shuttle, which was a pretty bad program. But I can't imagine Ted Cruz being good for NASA either. Hopefully since he didn't do much about NASA in the past, he will continue to mostly ignore it and let other people run it.
On January 09 2015 13:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
On January 09 2015 13:02 Millitron wrote:
On January 09 2015 12:52 zlefin wrote: It does sound somewhat sloppy to write a law and not be more familiar with the topic. That said, there are experts around to review these things, and make sure the terms are used correctly in the legislation. I'd also note that while assault weapons may see some use in mass shootings, their overall contribution to criminal homicides is low; while their usefulness as a defense against potential government tyranny (one of the purposes of the 2nd amendment), is quite clear. Whereas handguns are not so useful in such a fight, but are the primary contributor to criminal actions with guns.
Even if there are experts around to be sure the words are used correctly, it doesn't matter if the legislators who vote on them don't know the words. So sure, the law makes grammatical sense, and you're less likely to end up with outright contradictions if you have experts review the laws, but that doesn't mean they make any more sense.
All a barrel shroud is is a plastic tube that goes around the barrel so you don't burn your hand if you brush up against it. Does that sound like a cop-killing baby-seeking murder device that needs to be banned to anyone?
It sounds like one of three things happened. Either there weren't experts around in the committee that wrote the law, there wasn't any expert testimony in the session that passed the bill, or simply a lot of legislators were absent/asleep during the expert testimony. None of which are encouraging.
See while I agree the shroud issue is silly. That's also part of my point. It's not really going to be a big deal one way or the other.
NOAA and NASA that's important stuff that anti science people should not be in charge of.
Things being banned for absolutely no reason is always a big deal, regardless of how unimportant the banned thing is. I agree that the underlying disease is that legislators have no responsibility to not be complete morons, but that doesn't mean that the symptoms are any less important.
If it's about banning things for basically no reason (I can imagine why they wanted to ban them) than Cannabis sits higher for me personally. That ban has actually already ruined peoples lives by the millions and continues to ruin lives and families every day.
Beyond that they are banning something with a practical and helpful purpose as opposed to something that is pretty pointless in general (talking about shrouds and bayonets and stuff like that).
You can't find one person who has a clue about cannabis who supports it being banned. Yet here we sit with people going to prison to enforce a ban no one can explain with any semblance of facts.
Well, I wouldn't say that barrel shrouds are pointless. It doesn't take much shooting before a barrel gets too hot to touch comfortably. Barrel shrouds are pretty nice to have if you don't want to burn your hands.
But I agree that the ban on Cannabis is phenomenally stupid. The whole War on Drugs really.
It's not even just about the particular things being banned though. I don't care that much what thing in particular is being banned, I'm mostly upset that they can get away with legislating about things they have no comprehension of. It's disgusting.
Pretty pointless. There are very few people who shoot the types of weapons that really use them that don't already know how to handle them without a shroud. They are really made for combat situations where your barrel is going to heat up to the point where it won't be uncomfortable but it would cause significant injury and there is a possibility you might grab near the barrel.
It's more aesthetic than it is functional for the vast majority of people who get them anyway. But I'm pretty sure the fact that the functionality it helps with is for safely firing a lot of rounds at a high frequency is why people wanted to ban it. If they knew anything about guns or how pointless such a ban would be they probably wouldn't have even mentioned it.
We agree though that the most upsetting common thread is the blatant ignorance about that which they make the laws for.
On January 09 2015 08:55 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm all for congress getting younger.
The picture does say a lot. one's pretty right on for that.
It's also true that she doesn't know much about guns. Ensuring a weapon isn't loaded isn't something you can trust an aide to do. I doubt she made sure the chamber was clear herself and she is breaking a lot of common sense gun safety procedures.
This bothers me just as much as the science crap or not even knowing what an ATM is. She thinks guns are dangerous and wants to legislate away the danger, but she doesn't/can't observe basic gun safety herself. Our legislators ignorance of the matters they legislate is bothersome regardless of where it falls politically.
They should institute a rule that any legislator must take a test on any topic they are a member of a committee for.
It doesn't even need to be a long or hard test, ANY test at all would be an improvement now.
On January 09 2015 08:57 farvacola wrote: Really now, let's not play the "who can find a picture of someone using poor trigger discipline" game because the knife cuts both ways, muchacho.
She claims to be so knowledgeable about guns that she has the authority to legislate about them, and yet she doesn't even know day-1 stuff. Hell, minute-1.
Yeah I think politicians on both sides get the benefit of the doubt that they have a clue what they are talking about too often.
I like the idea of a test but hard to imagine how it wouldn't be rigged.
Since I find so little to agree with you on nearly every topic, I'm just wanting to state here that I'm in complete agreement. Politicians on both sides get too much benefit of the doubt that they have a clue about what they are talking about. I also like the idea of a test but can't divine any way that it wouldn't be rigged.
Politico has the scoop that Obama's going to propose something big with regards to community college. Obama to propose two free years of community college for students
President Barack Obama will need the approval of Congress to realize his proposal for making two years of community college free for students.
So far, that plan doesn’t have an official price tag — other than “significant,” according to White House officials. If all 50 states participate, the proposal could benefit 9 million students each year and save students an average of $3,800 in tuition, the White House said.
But administration officials insisted on a call with reporters Thursday evening that “this is a proposal with bipartisan appeal.”
Case in point: Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, whose brainchild Tennessee Promise program strongly influenced Obama’s proposal. Beginning this year, any high school graduate in that state is eligible for two years of free community college tuition under the Tennessee Promise.
Obama, alongside Vice President Joe Biden and second lady Jill Biden, will tout his proposal dubbed “America’s College Promise” during a visit Pellissippi Community College in Knoxville, Tenn., on Friday.
We don't need to be sending more kids to community colleges. Too many kids go to college/university already. What we need to do is develop trade schools where people can actually go learn something that will be useful to them.
On January 10 2015 05:18 xDaunt wrote: We don't need to be sending more kids to community colleges. Too many kids go to college/university already. What we need to do is develop trade schools where people can actually go learn something that will be useful to them.
You do realize that community colleges often have those kind of programs, right? Regardless, I disagree, a more educated populace is good for the nation even if it does not change their job prospects later on. I'm one of those radicals that believes that college shouldn't be geared towards the job market though.
Educated citizens of a liberal democracy and all that. I know, me too. Trade education is great and everything, and I have nothing against it. But civic education has purposes beyond anybody's profession. We are all whatever we are, but we are also all citizens, and that is a job with duties like any other.
On January 10 2015 05:18 xDaunt wrote: We don't need to be sending more kids to community colleges. Too many kids go to college/university already. What we need to do is develop trade schools where people can actually go learn something that will be useful to them.
Yeah those programs are the bread and butter of Community colleges. Just so you know XDaunt most of those kids in Community College are just finally being taught what you probably learned in junior high and high school.
What we need is a drastic overhaul of our educational process. SO many of the core practices are just dumb and archaic.
Having 6 -7 classes from junior high on where there is never any connections made between what you are learning in one class to another is just stupid. It would make way more sense to bundle classes and teachers in ways where concepts that connect/overlap can be taught and understood together.
So I suppose if the idea is to force people who went through shitty schools to stay out of college and shove them into 'trades' that makes sense. But if you want people to have the same opportunities for success in education bridging the gap between students who went to shitty schools (through no fault of their own) and the colleges that would benefit from their attendance it's not a very good idea.
It might be hard to imagine but I've seen students cry after taking placement tests and finding out their 3.9 English/math GPA actually only put them just below college level. That's not their fault and they shouldn't be pushed to a trade and denied a well rounded education just because their parents were lower income and their schools are shit.
I personally think it is kind of stupid to encourage poor people to get crappier educations than well off people. Which is primarily how our education system is geared.
On January 10 2015 05:18 xDaunt wrote: We don't need to be sending more kids to community colleges. Too many kids go to college/university already. What we need to do is develop trade schools where people can actually go learn something that will be useful to them.
The majority of those programs are at community colleges.
We must remove the stigma associated with vocational education and at the same time still figure out a way to better teach the humanities. I maintain that this current fascination with STEM education really misses the ball, and nowhere can this be better seen than in mainstream post-Reagan US politics. Throwing science at people who don't know how to "think" about science just isn't going to cut it.
On January 10 2015 06:52 farvacola wrote: We must remove the stigma associated with vocational education and at the same time still figure out a way to better teach the humanities. I maintain that this current fascination with STEM education really misses the ball, and nowhere can this be better seen than in mainstream post-Reagan US politics. Throwing science at people who don't know how to "think" about science just isn't going to cut it.
I agree about the STEM focus missing a lot but we can't even agree on teaching them at all. Who knows what's going to happen to kids like these...
Fourteen states do not specify any subjects that families must teach, and only nine states require that parents have at least a high school diploma or equivalent in order to teach their children. In half the states, children who are taught at home never have to take a standardized test or be subject to any sort of formal outside assessment.
And the movement is growing. Once mainly concentrated among religious families as well as parents who wanted to release their children from the strictures of traditional classrooms, home schooling is now attracting parents who want to escape the testing and curriculums that have come along with the Common Core, new academic standards that have been adopted by more than 40 states.
According to the most recent federal statistics available, the number of school-age children who were home-schooled in the United States was close to 1.8 million in 2011-12, up from 1.5 million five years earlier. According to federal data, the highest concentration of home-schooling families are in the South and West, although precise figures are difficult to collect because many states, including Connecticut, Oklahoma and Texas, do not require families to register with either a school district or the state education agency.
This might make people laugh, coming from me, but homeschooling needs to more regulated than it currently is, if not virtually eliminated. In far too many US locales, it is practically impossible for children born to shitty parents to escape them. Zoom out a little bit, and the same can be said for entire regions of the country in that it is extremely difficult for youth to seek reprieve from their immediate and intimate surroundings, mostly in the South and the Great Plains. Apathy pervades the users and providers of public services in places like this, and when entire demographics keep telling themselves that government really just doesn't work, there is absolutely no recourse for anyone who disagrees and lives nearby or goes to the same public school. This is not to say that the same thing doesn't also happen with liberals in charge, but it is no coincidence that the "wheat" of our country comes from places in which public education and other public services are provided competently and are well funded, whereas the "chaff" comes from places in which disbelief in the efficacy of government runs rampant.
Localism that is mere steps away from tribalism is no basis for a society as great and "capable" as ours.
Peace, Cannon and Williamson — all members of a militia in Georgia — participated in online chat discussions between Jan. 23 and Feb. 15, 2014, that were monitored by the FBI.
During the conversations online, they discussed using guerilla war tactics and planned to launch attacks against a metro Atlanta police station and several government agencies in February 2014.
The three men attempted to “recruit other individuals to join them and to carry out similar operations in those individuals’ home states.”
Peace allegedly told other militia members to choose targets including “road blocks, TSA checkpoints, sheriffs/police conducting operations outside the Constitution” as well as to participate in the “removal of government people who support extra-Constitutional activities.”
In February 2014, the men traveled from Rome to Tennessee for a meeting with an undercover FBI source about getting several explosive devices, including a thermite-mix charge and a dozen pipe bombs constructed for “maximum fragmentation.” Phone conversations with an informant recorded Peace requesting explosives and telling the informant the devices were a “key element” to their plan.
If they would of been actually able to obtain the explosives it could of been the biggest and deadliest terror attack and attack on cops on the US mainland since 9/11
It’s not about jobs, it’s not about energy. Why is this bill so urgent? The answer is money. Money and power. The pipeline might not do much for the American people, but it is worth a whole lot to the Canadian oil industry.
Who does this new Republican Congress work for: foreign oil companies or the American people? Today, their first priority is to advance a pipeline that means a whole lot to an army of well-paid lobbyists, and a whole lot to a giant, foreign oil company.
… we know that this pipeline runs terrible environmental risks, and it just won’t do much to help the American people. I didn’t come here to do favors for TransCanada. Republican leaders may disagree, but I’ll be voting no on this.
Here's a better source GH, more factual, less partisan.
The GOP-controlled House of Representatives has voted 266-153 to approve the Keystone XL pipeline despite a presidential veto threat, just hours after Nebraska's Supreme Court, in a split decision, cleared the way for the controversial project.
The Senate, which also has a Republican majority, is considering similar legislation. ... The White House says President Obama will veto any congressional legislation that approves the pipeline. He has previously said he will let the process — including the one in Nebraska's courts — play out before his decision. And the White House reiterated that position today. ... But after today's court decision, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairwoman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the decision "wipes out President Obama's last excuse."
"Regardless of whatever new excuse he may come up with, Congress is moving forward," she said in a statement.
The comments were echoed by the American Petroleum Institute, which said Obama "has no more excuses to delay or deny the Keystone XL pipeline."
One of the groups in the coalition opposing today's court decision, Bold Nebraska, said the issue is now in Obama's hands.
"This is a bad day for property rights in Nebraska," the group said in a statement. "Private, foreign corporations now know they can buy their way through our state."
On January 10 2015 09:18 Chewbacca. wrote: Wonder how much shit like that occurs and the FBI or whomever stops it and we just hear nothing about it.
If the terrorists names are Ahmed and Muhammed, we will hear about it. If its Bubba we will not. Because white people arent terrorists, they are just individual mentally insane people. Unlike those monolithic black-Muslim blocks.
It’s not about jobs, it’s not about energy. Why is this bill so urgent? The answer is money. Money and power. The pipeline might not do much for the American people, but it is worth a whole lot to the Canadian oil industry.
Who does this new Republican Congress work for: foreign oil companies or the American people? Today, their first priority is to advance a pipeline that means a whole lot to an army of well-paid lobbyists, and a whole lot to a giant, foreign oil company.
… we know that this pipeline runs terrible environmental risks, and it just won’t do much to help the American people. I didn’t come here to do favors for TransCanada. Republican leaders may disagree, but I’ll be voting no on this.
Going to be a rough couple of years.
The sad part is that Warren and Obama have put their lies out long enough for people to take them as facts.
On January 10 2015 09:18 Chewbacca. wrote: Wonder how much shit like that occurs and the FBI or whomever stops it and we just hear nothing about it.
If the terrorists names are Ahmed and Muhammed, we will hear about it. If its Bubba we will not. Because white people arent terrorists, they are just individual mentally insane people. Unlike those monolithic black-Muslim blocks.
Except the people in the story are white, and none of them are named Ahmed.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department is weighing bringing criminal charges against former CIA Director David Petraeus over the handling of classified information, a U.S. official said Friday night.
The official said investigators have presented senior-level Justice Department officials such as Attorney General Eric Holder with information on the case to help inform a decision on charging the former four-star general.
The official was not authorized to discuss the investigation by name and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Robert Barnett, a lawyer for Petraeus, declined to comment Friday night, as did Marc Raimondi, a spokesman for the Justice Department.
Federal investigators have been looking into whether Petraeus improperly shared classified materials with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, with whom he admitted having an affair when he resigned from his position in November 2012. Agents found a substantial number of classified documents on Broadwell's computer and at her home, a law enforcement official has previously said.
Both have publicly apologized for the relationship. They have said their romantic relationship began only after he retired from the military and started at the CIA.
The scandal marked an abrupt fall for Petraeus, a man who led U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and was thought to be a potential candidate for president. Since leaving the agency, he still makes occasional public appearances, including at a Sept. 11 commemoration event in Denver.
It was not immediately clear when any decision would be made on whether to charge Petraeus.
EPT
