The Democrat Thread

[Jenksismyhero]

Hmm, sounds substantially different from "One, a $750,000 NSF grant "to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contribution of soccer players."" Kinda like Bobby Jindahl's "volcano monitoring", and Sarah Palin's "fruit flies", and pretty much every GOP member attacking science funding that sounds funny to them and plays well with an ignorant base.

 

Why are you making excuses for characterizing the research in the most negative, asinine way possible instead of honestly, if you really want citizen input? Why not have links to the grant proposal or a summary of the research?

 

edit: not links from you, but on the "Youcut" website.

 

edit2:here's the paper

 

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.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[StrangeSox]

Lol, scientific elitism at its finest - "the base is too stupid to understand the importance of the almighty science!"

 

Not exactly what I said, now is it? Ignorance has nothing to do with intelligence. I'm ignorant of a large number of scientific topics. But I recognize that ignorance, and don't judge based on silly titles and false summaries by politicians.

 

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.

 

They're distorting the information. It's misleading. It's lying. They omit key facts and explanations of what the research is for. But please, keep make excuses for demagoguery.

 

You're asking for people to form opinions based on misleading summaries and in complete ignorance of what the research is and why it may be important. I do not see that as productive discourse, but more embracing of willful ignorance.

 

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.

 

Ok, question it. But do it in an honest manner. Don't lie and misrepresent like the GOP is doing and has done for decades when it comes to scientific research.

 

And, just as an aside, cutting science funding isn't exactly going to be good for the economy.

[Balta1701]

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

I see no problem at all with questioning whether or not federal funds should be going to these things. Its our money.

 

However, I do see a problem with people relying on a partisan political party's false descriptions of these studies, and I also have a problem with the general public having up/down vote power on these things, when frankly most people reading about them won't understand their value.

 

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.

 

[Balta1701]

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.

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is exactly how the scientists want it as well.

Go science!

 

[Balta1701]

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

[Jenksismyhero]

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.

 

So scientists reviewing other scientists to determine if their research is warranted is the perfect system. No excess spending could possibly happen there!

 

Look, in general I agree with you. A complete waste of money isn't going to slip by. BUT, it's a bunch of scientists, who by their nature are going to approve projects that otherwise might not be so....resourceful. Their ideology is that learning X about Y is ALWAYS beneficial, almost regardless of cost. So the process is having scientists determining not whether it's worth ANY money, but HOW MUCH money. That's better left to, you know, representatives and legislators.

 

I agree that if there's some downright lies about projects then it's something to complain about. But i'm sorry, using a phrase to generalize a study or project using federal dollars is the only way that average people can get a grasp of where their money is going. Of course a GOP member is going to overstate its waste. Just like a liberal environmentalist is going to overstate how important it is.

 

My point is that i'd rather have people question spending, even if irrationally so, than to just accept that every grant the government hands out is warranted. EVERYTHING is a waste unless proven otherwise IMO.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[NorthSideSox72]

So scientists reviewing other scientists to determine if their research is warranted is the perfect system. No excess spending could possibly happen there!

 

Look, in general I agree with you. A complete waste of money isn't going to slip by. BUT, it's a bunch of scientists, who by their nature are going to approve projects that otherwise might not be so....resourceful. Their ideology is that learning X about Y is ALWAYS beneficial, almost regardless of cost. So the process is having scientists determining not whether it's worth ANY money, but HOW MUCH money. That's better left to, you know, representatives and legislators.

 

I agree that if there's some downright lies about projects then it's something to complain about. But i'm sorry, using a phrase to generalize a study or project using federal dollars is the only way that average people can get a grasp of where their money is going. Of course a GOP member is going to overstate its waste. Just like a liberal environmentalist is going to overstate how important it is.

 

My point is that i'd rather have people question spending, even if irrationally so, than to just accept that every grant the government hands out is warranted. EVERYTHING is a waste unless proven otherwise IMO.

Actually, it can't, by nature. The funding level for NSF grants is not determined by these scientists, its a set number that Congress has to pass.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Actually, it can't, by nature. The funding level for NSF grants is not determined by these scientists, its a set number that Congress has to pass.

 

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.

Edited December 17, 2010 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

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.

[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.

[StrangeSox]

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.

 

A small objection to that. If some crappy research at Argonne gets approved, Argonne, the scientists working on the study, tangential employees and probably the local community all benefit from it.

 

But anyway, yeah, you and NSS have covered it well. There's a very limited amount of funding, and the grant process is incredibly rigorous. Politicizing the whole thing via this Youcut doesn't really add anything at all to the system. It doesn't address any real issues. It just points out funny-sounding research for ridicule by ignorant* people.

 

*using the literal definition here,

ig·no·rant/ˈignərənt/Adjective

1. Lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

2. Lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular: "ignorant of astronomy".

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

OK, that's different. Of the money allocated, what is "spot on" isn't black and white. I think what you are getting at is, who determines what "wins" the grants? What value is being added in each case? I don't know those details.

 

[Balta1701]

A small objection to that. If some crappy research at Argonne gets approved, Argonne, the scientists working on the study, tangential employees and probably the local community all benefit from it.

But while that is true...none of the people making the choice on whether or not to fund the grant have a say in funding it. Worst case scenario, maybe you get 1 person from the same institute on a committee dealing with a grant of his or her colleague, or you get a friend dealing with a grant from his or her colleague, but NSF works very hard to avoid that...and even if it does happen, one person does not have power over any review panel. Worst case scenario, there are multiple leaders of every review panel, with a full panel of other reviewers underneath who might call them on it.

 

If I work on the synchotron and I start funding projects on the synchotron that aren't good just to keep the thing running, I'm going to not only piss people off because good, publishable work isn't being done, but I'm also going to wind up sabotaging my institute's reputation, to the point that I myself will wind up struggling to get funding.

[StrangeSox]

But while that is true...none of the people making the choice on whether or not to fund the grant have a say in funding it. Worst case scenario, maybe you get 1 person from the same institute on a committee dealing with a grant of his or her colleague, or you get a friend dealing with a grant from his or her colleague, but NSF works very hard to avoid that...and even if it does happen, one person does not have power over any review panel. Worst case scenario, there are multiple leaders of every review panel, with a full panel of other reviewers underneath who might call them on it.

 

If I work on the synchotron and I start funding projects on the synchotron that aren't good just to keep the thing running, I'm going to not only piss people off because good, publishable work isn't being done, but I'm also going to wind up sabotaging my institute's reputation, to the point that I myself will wind up struggling to get funding.

 

Ah, I missed the "at NSF" distinction in your DoD comparison, my mistake.

[Balta1701]

OK, that's different. Of the money allocated, what is "spot on" isn't black and white. I think what you are getting at is, who determines what "wins" the grants? What value is being added in each case? I don't know those details.

First, the NSF sets funding goals at the upper levels. These decisions are in part political and guided by Congess, and are in part governed by people at the upper level of the NSF. In general they're somewhat vague.

 

For example, I might have a research directorate working on "new infectious diseases" or "environmental impacts of oil spills". Within that group, active scientists are drafted to form a review panel. The leaders of that panel are given a certain amount of funds that they can disperse. They set the rules for what types of projects they're willing to fund and make those available online through NSF's funding website. There is then a period of a few months where scientists throughout the country prepare and submit their grants. Meanwhile, a full panel of reviewers is set up.

 

Those things aren't easy. You need to tell exactly how you're going to do them, you need detailed budgets, you need to establish that you have the equipment to do the measurements you want, you need to demonstrate how it will improve education, you need to establish how it will provide public benefits. In general, you send these proposals through several people at your own institution, through collaborators at other institutions, and through your university/insitute's office of research, all of which offer checks, suggestions, etc. Finally, you submit the thing 23 minutes before the submission deadline.

 

Once the deadline passes, the several dozen or more appropriately directed and formatted grant applications are distributed to the review panel for a period of weeks. The reviewers then grade each one based on the requirements of the panel. The review panel includes both scientists and people representing NSF. In general the chairs are scientists working actively in that field, as are the large majority of the reviewers.

 

The panel then meets and establishes group grades for each proposal, in person (i.e. there's no opportunity to anonymously game the system). In general, there is about enough money to fund the "A's" if you're lucky. Only the top 5-10% of proposals wind up funded. After all that, NSF distributes their funds to the winning proposals. While the grant is out, there are then multiple times that the principal investigator will have to submit summaries of what work has been done, where the publications are, what students are you funding, etc (and if you're failing to complete the appropriate tasks, your funding is at risk).

[Balta1701]

Senator Corker has threatened to pull his vote on the new START treaty if the Democrats pass the Don't ask, don't tell repeal.

 

Senator McCain also delivered a rambling anti-new-START performance on the Senate floor which really wasn't linked to anything rationally.

 

Both of them voted for the motion to proceed. If both of them vote against the treaty, it would stand at 65 votes in favor and fail.

 

Edit; I think I was wrong, another place says Sen. Corker voted against the motion to proceed, but McCain did not. 66 votes would still be a failure.

[StrangeSox]

Well that's special, hold up a strategic arms treaty because you don't want gays in the military.

 

From the same link, McCain and Kyl are being reasonable (on START) by saying START should stand or fall on its own.

[Balta1701]

With all this pointless fooling around we did trying to get people out of vietnamese cages...we ought to have left them there to rot.

Arizona Sen. John McCain did it again, insulting 9/11's heroes and belittling the push to pass a health bill as "fooling around."

 

The Arizona Republican, dubbed McWeasel for blowing off an ailing Ground Zero construction worker two weeks ago, whipped up new fury last night by suggesting Senate Democrats have wasted time trying to pass the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, among other bills.

 

At the time, McCain was refusing to accept a time limit for debating the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

 

"To have a time agreement after all of the fooling around that we've been doing on [the] Dream Act, on New York City ... we will not have a time agreement from this side," he insisted angrily.

 

That did not go over well with New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who rushed to the Senate floor, praising the former POW's Vietnam service but hammering his ill-thought comments.

 

"This is not fooling around," Schumer said. "These men and the thousands of others who rushed to the towers on 9/11 and in the days thereafter were not fooling around - they, just like my colleague from Arizona, were risking their lives.

 

"To call ... helping them fooling around is saddening and frustrating," Schumer charged, taking offense at the notion that his and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand's attempts to pass the Zadroga bill are some kind of joke.

Assuming that quote is accurate...someone ought to tell the Senator to go Cheney himself.

[StrangeSox]

Ive been holding off, but I'll just go ahead and say it now:

 

Please just retire and disappear from the public eye already, McCain. You've become a horrible person.

Edited December 19, 2010 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

Well, the next congress is off to the races.

The Miami-Dade state attorney's office is investigating more than $500,000 in secret payments from the owners of the Flagler Dog Track to a company tied to Congressman-elect David Rivera, The Miami Herald has learned.

 

Most of the money was paid in early 2008, weeks after Rivera -- then a member of the Florida House of Representatives -- helped run a political campaign backed by the dog track to win voter approval for Las Vegas-style slot machines at parimutuel venues in Miami-Dade County.

 

The dog track -- now called the Magic City Casino -- made three payments totaling $510,000 to Millennium Marketing, a company currently co-managed by Rivera's 70-year-old mother. Investigators are still trying to determine if Rivera himself received any of the money, or if anything about the transaction was illegal, according to sources close to the inquiry.

 

Rivera, a Miami Republican elected to Congress on Nov. 2, has previously denied working for the dog track, though he played a public role in supporting the pro-slots referendum campaign. Rivera never reported receiving any money from Flagler during his eight-year tenure in the Legislature.

 

Rivera, who is scheduled to be sworn in as a member of Congress on Jan. 5, declined to be interviewed for this article, but he released a statement saying that he never received any money from the dog track or from Millennium.

 

In the statement, Rivera said he was ``designated by Millennium'' to work on the slots campaign after the firm was hired by Flagler, and added he has not been contacted by investigators. At the time the contract was signed, Millennium's sole corporate officer was Rivera's godmother, Ileana Medina.

 

But Roberto Martinez, an attorney for the dog track, said it was Rivera who first approached the track owners in 2006 asking to manage the slots campaign, and it was Rivera who suggested that the contract go through Millennium, rather than to Rivera directly. Flagler's contract with Millennium was signed by both Rivera and Medina.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I was told in church today that "devious people" are releasing "private information" that is going to cause people to die.

*face palm*

[Balta1701]

His vote wound up not being needed, but it's worth taking the time to write a post giving extra grief to Senator Manchin (D-WV), who ditched out of both the DADT votes and the Dream act vote yesterday, using the excuse of going to a holiday party with his family.

[JorgeFabregas]

I was told in church today that "devious people" are releasing "private information" that is going to cause people to die.

*face palm*

I hope this wasn't part of the sermon.