Balta1701

Let me also add...if most of the government had as many checks and balances as NSF had before it can spend money...it would probably save hundreds of billions of dollars from the DOD alone. The biggest difference I'd say is that in no case at NSF does anyone benefit if bad work is done. In say, the DOD or in other programs, if a crappy project is funded, the people who get the contracts benefit, or the general supporting the program benefits, or the congressman whose district gets the money benefits. No one who is making the choice at NSF on what to fund benefits if they fund a project that isn't worthy.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 01:30 PM) So you're saying ever grant ever handed out was spot on, no waste, and absolutely beneficial to our advancement and knowledge? Edit: I should say that by "excess" I don't mean spending over and above what's been allocated. I'm saying it's money that never should have been allocated to begin with. In a lot of cases of course, you can't evaluate whether a grant is going to produce incredible results until you actually do the work, that's sort of the utility of science. But to answer your question more specifically...there is no mechanism for useless work to get through NSF. Some non-trivial group of scientists and bureaucrats absolutely must agree that the work is vital and is better than 90% of the other proposals that they have in front of them. And also worth noting...these guys aren't nearly as corrupt as you suggest. First of all, the NSF review panels are generally anonymous. If I send in a grant, I don't know who my reviewers are, and they know that if I someday get one of their grant proposals I can't retaliate because I don't know who refused mine. Secondly, you guys generally like competition correct? This is a competitive process with very limited resources. It takes enormous effort to access those resources, there are constant reviews and checkups to make sure that things are being done with the money, etc. The idea that there is this huge pool of money that scientists are blowing on whatever they want to blow it on isn't anywhere close to the truth. If a project is being funded, it has met so many different levels of proof about its utility that yes, it's virtually impossible for garbage to get through.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 01:15 PM) I blame it more on TT getting minutes. When in doubt, blame the fail that is Tyrus. His minutes have actually been going consistently downwards since 08-09, and he's getting fewer than last year with the Bobcats as well.

Stewart continues to be the only 1 covering the death of the 9/11 first responder health care bill. The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c 9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster www.thedailyshow.com Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

QUOTE (dpd9189 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 01:07 PM) I agree that last year wasn't Jenks' best year but he wasn't bad either. He was 27/31 in save opportunities. Regardless the bullpen is going to have to step it up this year for the Sox to be a contender. Please, stop quoting Jenks's save percentage as though it means anything at all. Let me give you an example. The game Jenks blew against Minnesota, the game that for all practical purposes ended the Sox's June run and set Minnesota in motion, Jenks came in for the 9th inning with a 3 run lead, save situation. Jenks loaded the bases and gave up 2 runs. Jenks was pulled without getting an out, having faced 5 guys. Santos came in, promptly gave up the game winning double. Because Jenks was pulled before he gave up the winning run, he was NOT credited with a save attempt or a blown save. Santos took the Blown Save, while Jenks took the loss. The blown save statistic is lying to you. Stop quoting it as though it means anything.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:58 PM) To me, the funding levels at the overall (NSF) level or even the general subject matter level (i.e. meteorology, volcanism, etc.), should be handled top-down in Congress. However, what individual projects then get that money should not be legislated at all - it should be decided by, ya know, scientists. Which is exactly how the scientists want it as well.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:41 PM) We'll take him. With his uninsurable knees, I'm starting to wonder if Portland might not be a season away from deciding to cut the cord.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:50 PM) While some of those things are indeed outright false (income taxes have gone up, auto bailout under Obama, TARP support, Obama's birth, scientists about climate change), the three top items about the economy and health care reform are NOT black and white, so I don't consider those falsehoods or truths in any absolute way. The phrase "Most economists believe..." is actually quite black and white. "The ACA will lower the deficit" and "Most economists say the ACA will lower the deficit" are 2 different questions. The latter is how it was phrased.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 12:22 PM) Lol, scientific elitism at its finest - "the base is too stupid to understand the importance of the almighty science!" Look, you're clearly on the scientific side, and that's great. But people have a right to have an opinion on what their money is being used for. These politicians might dumb the projects down to key catch phrases, but that's still basically what it is. When people are out of work and don't have money for food, spending 750k "to study a very broad range of questions related to creating productive, efficient teams of researchers who innovate" is suspect and should be questioned. There's 1 point you're missing here Jenks...these projects are peer-reviewed. Repeatedly. NSF grants are probably the most heavily questioned, heavily overseen funds that the government spends. The average success rate on first-time submission NSF proposals right now is right around 10%. The overall success rate hangs around 20%...and that's after people submit proposals 2-3 times getting all of the details exactly right. Every grant has to go through about a half dozen different review levels, by both bureaucrats (not in the pejorative sense) and by panels of reviewers working in that field, who in many cases are their competition. One big reason we get bent out of shape when people just pluck a phrase that sounds funny or complex and say "Oh this clearly is a waste of money" is that if it was a waste of money, it never would have come close to being funded.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 11:06 AM) Did they foget about the Lee guy leaving like $50 million on the table? If the 7th year vests, I'm not sure he left anything on the table actually.

Again...that's the 47th survey to show those same results since 2003.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 10:10 AM) If he can find a way to make it more valuable than the BCS system, I have no doubt the NCAA would jump on it. I disagree. Everyone already knows that a playoff would be more valuable overall in revenue terms than the current bowl system. The problem is that there are certain very powerful schools, very powerful conferences, and perhaps most importantly...very powerful bowl coordinators and sponsors who are heavily invested in the bowls, and they'd be the ones with the most to lose from a playoff system.

One more flashlight for the Dems to get annoyed at, this one from my personal file. The incoming Republicans in the house have set up a "Youcut!" page, which is supposed to give "everyday americans" a chance to voice their opinion on what things they want to gut from the budget. Part of the stuff they've included are NSF grants. Specific, peer-reviewed, NSF grants. They come up with their own description of what the grant involves, and allow people to vote to cut them based on how funny their description of the grant sounds. Link.

I could give a more detailed response...but I'm just absolutely flabbergasted by this statement. No, playing hardball would have involved actually putting 2 bills on the floor, one of them for the upper crust tax cuts, one for everyone else, and whipping hard enough on the upper crust tax cuts that it lost and the Republicans were on record supporting them and opposing the lower class ones. The only reason we even got to this point was that the Democrats didn't have the stomach for a fight. Oh, and regardless of how silly the "Businesses aren't hiring because of uncertainty" line is, that doesn't change the fact that it's the official Republican explanation for why the economy is stalling.

Link

Brandon Roy is becoming increasingly frustrated and is now complaining publicly about playing next to Andre Miller. It sounds like he gave a "it's him or me" speech to the Blazers management a few weeks ago.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 09:23 AM) I will say when he came up in 2005 and closing was not his role, he was just fine. That was the last time setting up wasn't his job. It will be interesting to see if he knows he has no chance at closing, if he can change his mentality towards setting up. I think everyone will universally agree he had much better raw stuff at that point in 2005 though. 102 mph fastballs, for example.

Just make sure kicking is all that you do with it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 09:14 AM) He's saying it seems wrong to him that the government should be taking money without some purpose for it in mind, and he apparently finds is sad and societally reflective that some people don't agree. Thing is, this isn't a tax, its a punitive penalty. You don't decide punitive penalties based on your need for money, because if you do, then that is far, far worse. Well, that makes more sense to me about what he's saying...but I stand by my confusion.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 09:53 PM) That's a good question. Its a mattery of internal military policy and military code, so its not necessarily a previously legislated regulation. Its also not a financial line item. Therefore, I believe, it may indeed be eligible for an executive order, which Congress would then need to override. But someone more knowledgeable than me would need to confirm all of this, I am not 100% sure. The President could in fact sign an executive order saying that the policy could not be enforced, just as the military was desegregated by executive order. However, it's more complicated than that. How it works currently is that the blanket ban on homosexuals serving in the military in fact remains on the books as a law passed by Congress. DADT is an executive order level policy that the Clinton administration put on top of that trying to limit how the military enforced that ban; the military was not supposed to ask, and so people in the closet were not supposed to be discharged (which is of course not how it has worked, it has remained a de facto ban in many cases). So, right now we have a fully bigoted "Homosexuals are not allowed to serve in the military" law on the books, with an executive order saying how to enforce that law. Another executive order could be issued to change further how that rule is enforced, but the gays-are-evil law itself would remain on the books, leaving the executive order able to be challenged in court or overturned by President Palin.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 10:05 PM) The policy is "BIGOTED"... stupid thinking.

Not what I said.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Dec 16, 2010 -> 10:10 PM) Best post of the year, right there Rexy. Thanks for illustrating THE point to all of this nonsense described as how our government works. Huh?

I haven't eaten at a burger king in about 7-8 years because of how much I hate their advertising.

QUOTE (since56 @ Dec 17, 2010 -> 09:07 AM) Jenks? Why didn't Coop fix him? I think he did, for a long, long time.