Why I hope Hillary doesn't run.

If Hillary Rodham Clinton passes in 2016, which Democrats run? The Fix ranks the tiers. - The Washington Post

So if Hillary doesn't run there's a chance that the Democrats will run an actual liberal for the first time since Lyndon Johnson

More from the Rockefeller Republican in the White House

If it comes to a choice between Social Security cuts and sequestration, then keep sequestration. After all, it's the only program that has been successful at cutting bloated "defense" spending.

Would the White House accept a budget deal without taxes? Maybe!

Once again, we have one side saying 2+2 = 5, and the other side saying
2+2 = 9 . I don't see much virtue in compromise between those positions.

Gonna be a Mental Toss Flycoon

Vision of Prairie Paradise Troubles Some Montana Ranchers - NYTimes.com

“It’s a misnomer that we’re paying top dollar,” said Sean Gerrity, the president of the American Prairie Reserve. “There are some properties we’re interested in, but they’re currently priced at above market value and we can’t go there.”

OK, look, I support your idea. I think it's great. Some day I hope to be able to visit. But PLEASE! get a dictionary and look up "misnomer."

Well DUH!

In Fed and Out, Many Now Think Inflation Helps - NYTimes.com

Inflation has been below the Fed's target rate most of the time for the last decade. That is bad for most Americans. The dollars that bought the house I grew up in, for instance, were greatly devalued over the next 30 years by inflation, making a higher standard of living possible for my family even while paying back the mortgage. But college graduates now face very high interest rates on student loans, while not able to expect increases in pay as they pay these loans back.

The article I cite above says that the Fed may increase the inflation rate, and this is what I have been saying they should do for quite a few years. The trouble is, people are swayed by the crocodile tears shed about those poor people on fixed incomes. (wait! I thought the same people making that argument have eliminated pensions, haven't they?)

They also buy in to the fairy tale that higher corporate profits cause corporations to hire more people. If that were true, then as corporate profits skyrocketed over the last couple of decades, they should have been hiring just about anybody with a pulse. And yet labor force participation rates are falling.

And they also say that inflation gives corporations the opportunity to cut wages. That's certainly true, but it's also true that cutting real wages over the last 35 years or so is what ultimately caused this mess. When things like this are true:

 The typical worker has had stagnating wages for a long time, despite enjoying some wage growth during the economic recovery of the late 1990s. While productivity grew 80% between 1979 and 2009, the hourly wage of the median worker grew by only 10.1%, with all of this wage growth occurring from 1996 to 2002, reflecting the strong economic recovery of the late 1990s.

then workers have less to spend, and firms sell less. They may make higher profits by cutting workers' real wages, but those profits do not lead to hiring when nobody's buying.

So overall I'm encouraged that it's just possible that the Fed's economists (especially if Yellen is confirmed) may get their collective heads out of the but of 1970s stagflation, even if the major reform needed, a stronger bargaining position for labor, is not part of the package.

"The Representative from Texas" has come to be the new intellect-based insult.

Barton vs. Barton in a 'monkey court' | MSNBC

Maybe they read 1984 and really thought the news was being scoured of their past idiocies?

What I've been saying for quite a while

If low tax rates on top earners caused economic growth, why has economic growth fallen since top tax rates were cut?

And the top tax rate reported is not in fact what most of the very rich really pay, since their income is taxed differently than earned income.

Why the 1% should pay tax at 80% | Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty | Comment is free | theguardian.com

I firmly believe that taxing the top earners at a much higher rate gives them an incentive to make sure that their employees are well paid and productive, and not just treat them like "human capital." After all, if the rich pay a very high marginal tax on very high earnings, they have less incentive to grab a very large part of the earnings of a firm, leaving the workers with little.

Drug Widens Immunity to Flu | The Scientist Magazine®

I really, really, reeeealy wish I had taken immunology and developmental biology when I was an undergraduate.

This is just too cool.

Drug Widens Immunity to Flu | The Scientist Magazine®

Fixing Congress

In the last Congressional election, there were fewer votes cast for Republicans than for Democrats. Polls show approval ratings lower for Congress than for bedbugs. Everybody complains, but it never changes (at least not for the better). And most of the problem is that it's always somebody else's representative we don't like.

As things stand now, we are not fairly or equally represented by our Congress. Because the number of representatives was capped at 435 in 1929, states with high populations, or states with populations not quite enough to get another representative, get shortchanged. The only thing the Constitution says is that a single representative will not represent fewer than 30,000 people. The limit of 435 is a simple act of Congress, and could be changed by Congress.

As more and more people move to more urban centers, the bulk of the population is becoming underrepresented. But some small states are underrepresented as well. Montana and Delaware are first and third on the list of People per Representative, presumably because they don't quite have enough people in them to get two representatives.

So here's my suggestion: Set the number of people per representative at half of the population of the least populous state. There will still be inequities, but not as great in magnitude.

Trouble is, that means we'd have to have about 1300 Congresscritters.

A possible solution

Of course Congressional hearings are more about grandstanding and speech making than fact finding. And of course politicians only lie when their lips are moving.

So maybe we can solve a bunch of problems by placing all committee members under oath at the beginning of the hearings. They could ask any questions they wanted to, but if they make statements of "fact," (such as the whopper that parks did not close in previous shutdowns) they could be imprisoned for perjury.

Oh wait! I forgot. Lying to Congress only matters if you are lying about a blowjob, right?

Why did national parks close? Ask the Republicans. - The Washington Post

Student misconceptions

Interesting article about how teacher awareness of student misconceptions, along with teacher subject area knowledge, affects student achievement.

I was particularly struck by this:

For the strong misconception items, the low-achieving students learned very little, whatever the teacher knowledge. For high-achieving students, knowledge mattered, and they were most likely to learn when their teacher had both subject-matter knowledge and knew the misconceptions their students likely held (KoSM in the graph).

So low-achieving students are not swayed from their misconceptions, no matter how much the teacher knows. I wonder if that might have something to do with cultural rejection of intellectualism by low achievers. IOW, they may say to themselves "Who does that egg-head think he is? Everybody knows [insert misconception here]."

What science teachers need to know (that isn’t about science)

Missed opportunity

Of course there's no way they could have known ahead of time, but the Republicans missed an opportunity they'd have had if they had waited until the rollout of the ACA's nifty new webisite. (You know, the one Jon Stewart was talking about when he challenged Kathleen Sibelius to a race; he'd download every movie ever made, and she's sign up for Obamacare)

(See this, for instance)

But while the completely unsurprising technical SNAFU unfolded, the chattering class was fully engaged in the hostage-taking on Capital Hill.

I suspect that this points to the Republican's greatest fear about Obamacare-- that it will succeed, and succeed spectacularly. Too bad they undervalue cynicism these days. I could'a told 'em.

Is China going to overtake us in research?

This is interesting. Just spending a lot on R&D doesn't guarantee you'll get much out of it, especiallyIs Chine going to overtake us in research? when the quality of the researchers is not up to snuff.

The U.S. isn’t about to lose its top spot in science — despite Congress’ best efforts

Study: Congress’s budget battles have cost the economy $700 billion so far

There's something very important to notice about this article. I reads very much like it was written for Faux News.

First, a study is published, and the immediate reaction is Whoa! Wait a minute! Now I'm all in favor of that attitude to press releases from partisan groups. It's really too bad reporters don't do this more often.

But the only economist who is mentioned by name is Krugman, who is likely to be dismissed out of hand by Faux's target audience. Then they start with the Faux News stock source for truly authoritative quotes, "Some People." If they can't get a quote from "Some People," they'll call "The people I talk to."

And in looking at the cuts in government spending and their contribution to economic losses, they still don't quite seem to understand that "the government" is not quite the same thing as "the federal government."

Study: Congress’s budget battles have cost the economy $700 billion so far

Pure, simple, absolute corruption of the worst kind.

The rules were changed so that only the majority leader can end the shutdown.
The GOP's little rule change they hoped you wouldn't notice - YouTube

Can someone please tell me...

...what's the important difference between the ACA and the 1993 Republican plan?
Summary Of A 1993 Republican Health Reform Plan - Kaiser Health News

Of course I mean except for "Ai! Ai! Obama! Obama is come!"

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Lunar orbiter set for long-distance laser data linkup

I saw this one go up. Even from about 60 miles away, it was exciting.

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | Lunar orbiter set for long-distance laser data linkup

Is the shutdown really SCOTUS' fault?

Here's an interesting point:

If it weren't for the Citizen's United decision, it would not have been possible for a few dozen ultra wealthy families to derail the entire government.

Idiot reporter gets it wrong In other news, water is wet.

Rule 1: Reporters are idiots.
Rule 2: any concept, no matter how concise and useful, will be hopelessly screwed up if "pop culture" get hold of it

From Ed Brayton's Dispatches From the Culture Wars:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/10/13/save-us-from-ignorant-reporters/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Is Economics a "science?"

There has been some discussion of whether economics is "really" a science.

On the question of whether economics is a science, I say that a discipline is a "science" to the extent that it's practitioners are acting scientifically. When they accept or reject theories because of ideology, they are being unscientific. When they accept of reject theories because of empirical fact, they are being scientific.

Fields such as medicine, history, sociology, psychology, and economics can be science, or not, depending on how they are practiced. And people in established sciences can certainly act unscientifically. When that happens, it is up to the rest of the field to enforce scientific ways of thought. This is the role of peer review.

As to whether economics is or is not currently being practiced scientifically, this quote says it all:

 "At no point was this rejection of Keynesianism driven by superior empirical performance; it was all about the principle, about refusing to incorporate anything that wasn’t derived from maximization all the way."

Greetings.

The "Chinese Room" is a thought experiment by John Searle used to argue against the idea that a computer could actually possess true artificial intelligence. In this thought experiment, an English speaker is in a room with Chinese symbols and complex instructions. When someone passes a question through a slit in the door in Chinese, this person, who does not himself speak Chinese, is able to follow the instructions, put symbols together, and answer the question.

Searle claims that since the person does not understand Chinese, then a computer similarly cannot truly understand questions put to it.

I believe  that this is an error. The person in the room is not "the computer." That person is only the processor. The room as a whole is the computer. And (assuming that the "Chinese Room" can pass a reasonable test of consciousness) the room as a whole does understand Chinese.

I am not a trained philosopher, nor a computer scientist. I am a science teacher whose primary background and interest is biology. Naturally, that means I teach chemistry. So maybe I'm the Chinese room, and maybe I'm the person in it. Who really knows? Do you take the Red Pill, or the Blue Pill?

This blog will contain my discussions of scientific, educational, economic, and political issues, from the point of view of someone who knows about enough to get himself into trouble. I may or may not have much time for extensive research beyond a link or two. I may or may not know what I am talking about. But I do hope always to think as a scientist. By that I mean that the real world is out there, and is the final authority. Disagree with me if you like, but lets try to be reasonably respectful, of each other as well as of the real world.

As I once told biology students who wanted to argue about evolution, feel free, but it's always about the evidence. If you have questions about the evidence, ask away. If you're just rejecting scientific conclusions because you don't like them, sorry, but the real world doesn't much care what you do or do not like.

I am an avid homebrewer, husband and father, and a grandfather. I love the natural world, but seldom have the time to do what I would love the most, just wander around in a natural setting and take in the wonder of life. I am a materialist in the philosophical sense. I see no evidence for supernatural phenomena, and to be completely honest, I'm not sure just what could count as evidence of non-material things anyway.

As my students always complain, I have already talked too long for an introductory post.