JayB

Time for a new analogy for evil, dude. Do a Google search for "Despots" or "Tyrants" or something....

Sounds like you've figured out that you are not doing what you want to be doing in life. Once you figure out what it is that you do want to do, or at least something that'll make you happier - the meaning and purpose can come from knowing that you are getting closer to starting something new with every paycheck that you earn at your present job.

Wow. That's amazingly low for that kind of work. Must be some folks willing to work for that, I suppose. When I was finishing up at UW there were miscellaneous consulting outfits and Wall Street quant-shops recruiting chem grads for their analytical skills, so there are other options. I think that in general the more interesting and rewarding a job is, the lower the pay. The pay-to-IQ/skill ratio in basic research is probably the lowest anywhere, but there's still a surplus of people who are passionate enough to accept those terms.

"Its from his studies at the University of Alaska." Gosh, I assumed it was something one of the guys working in the Boeing paint-shop penned while the primer was drying, or a line-worker in Detroit scribbled down between welds.... It's not paying the rent or scraping up enough cash to pay for the transmission rebuild that's on their minds, its the fact that they're "actively alienating themselves from the alien products of blah, blah, blay.." Christ.

Jesus dude, which anthology of continental post-modern labor studies did you dredge that up from?

What kind of job was it at Molecular Probes?

All depends on what your skills are and what you want to do, doesn't it? We are after all highly relative creatures. Vaccinations, sanitation, antibiotics, and a permanent agricultural surplus seal the deal for me. Anything stopping you from dropping it all and trying your hand at subsistence farming in the third-world? Homesteading in Alaska?

I dig spending lots of time out in the woods when I can, and one of the reasons is that it reminds me of how easy I've got it compared to all of the generations before me.

Following in the footsteps of the PTL club...

There's an interesting precedent for the response to nomination. Apparently LBJ also nominated a candidate that was perceived to have few qualifications outside of being an LBJ crony, and his own party prevented the nomination from going forward.

What policy instrument would you like to see put into place for job creation? Are we talking private or public sector jobs? It's easy to create public sector jobs, but in the long-term, doing so does not always result in a net-increase in employment.

I never heard that one before. Liberals believe that individuals should be free to do whatever they please on the free market, within the law. Liberalism is more open to progress and change. Conservatives look to conserve traditions and truths from the past. Based on those explanations I gave above, if you are a conservative, then you would have been against women voting, and against segregation in schools. I guess women voting and segregation of schools were only emotional issues for liberals when these issues became hot topics in our nation. My only quibble with your definition is that it doesn't seem to jive very well with the manner in which they are understood in the US. I think that your definition squares pretty well with the manner in which "Liberalism" is understood in Europe and the Anglosphere outside of the US, and the classical definition of the term - but anyone who aligns themselves with trade unions, tarriffs, protectionism, national ownership of the principal industries, laws against "hate" speech, etc - is most assuredly not liberal. Leftist, yes. Liberal in the sense that it's understood by most of the world, and in the terms in which it was originally defined - no. Google "English Corn Laws" for a good example of what liberal used to mean.

I had the same impression as Carl, more or less. Good for science and engineering, and respectable in the rest. Location's hard to beat.

Contemplate living on the East Coast, the Midwest, or the South - then reflect upon your present situation. Should have you doing cartwheels of joy in the streets...

I agree that it's generally the quality of the student that matters - but if you are being graded on a curve and you are competing against bright, dilligent peers - that certainly helps keep one's nose to the grindstone. What happens in the classroom counts - but most of the debate at a university occurs outside of the classroom walls in study sessions, bull-sessions, random conversations, etc - all an important part of an education IMO, and a place where you'll spend a great deal of time having to defend your opinions if they differ from the consensus.

One of the many things you'll never understand, eh? Heaven forbid you send your daughter to one of the better universities. Of course given the intellectual fragility of conservatism, I can understand why. Do you really think UC Boulder is one of the better universities? Always seemed like an okay university with a kick-ass location to me but I haven't really been following the rankings for a while either. FWIW I thought that having opinions which were generally at odds with the prevailing sentiments of those around me was actually a huge advantage - as you actually go through the experience of having your beliefs challenged, having to defend the said beliefs with the best arguments you can muster amidst a hostile audience, etc. By the end of my time there I actually was actually sad that I didn't have time to enroll in more of them. I would say the main changes that exposure to this environment brought about was a shift to a more libertarian stance on social issues, and a strengthening of existing convictions on scientific and economic issues. It would be interesting to see what people got their degrees in and how those correlate to what they espouse here on the board. BS Biochem, BA History of Science, Minor in Chemistry.

"Is Bush's proclamation that "democracy is on the march" an accurate one? Are things in fact going as well in Iraq as he and his spokesmen keep telling us? They will greet us with flowers, I mean, there is no insurgency, I mean the insurgency is on its last legs, I mean more Iraqi units are able to fight without our troops..." Constitutional referendum on the 15th. To me - this is an encouraging development, but I am admittedly quite biased...

I think we're a long way from what I consider an optimal tax-policy at the moment, but as things stand I'd have no issue with the inheritance tax reverting to it's previous form. As far as global warming is concerned - I think there are relatively few people who are arguing that it's not occuring, and that carbon emissions aren't playing a role. From what I've seen most of the controversey centers on the extent to which carbon emissions are responsible for the warming - and what the best response is - best being the response that produces the minimal level of environmental damage and human misery.

Might be simpler - but not necessarily better policy from a progressive taxation or economic standpoint. Its longevity probably has more to do with the intensity with which the parties that benefit from it defend it than its intrinsic merit as an instrument of social or economic policy.

I think the market for any reform working against the immediate self interest of Americans is dead before arrival. Perhaps with widespread discussion and a champion it could receive support from a "progressive" base, but I don't see any politician coming within miles. Ditto on the political DOA. The main reason why I think it's a bad policy is that it results in distortions that shift capital away from sectors like infrastructure and production - but I also love watching the "End tax breaks for the Rich!" fervor dissipate in certain quarters when the definition includes anyone with enough cash to swing a $400K plus victorian in Freemont and a new Volvo wagon.....

Good article. Do you think the reforms, if proposed, would get widespread support from the progressive base?

You guys throw your shit continuously and think it will stick. Just because you say Bush is a liar over and over again ad nauseum does not make it true, nor does it mean that the American public believes it to be true. What you can't take is that this is the case. Well, it is. You've failed to convince the American public. Deal with it. And no amount of the "press" parroting your accusations will change that. So enjoy your sour grapes. You must generally agree with how your tax dollars are spent. As well as your future tax dollars. Remember, 1/3 of your tax dollars are spent on paying interest. Interest does not go back to the general infrastructure. Who holds a lot of the U.S. debt these days? China. Pretty much every major oil exporter is looking for someplace to invest the cash windfall that recent spike in prices has produced - and quite a bit of it is actually ending up underwriting the national debt - and keeping mortgage rates low as they're part of the group of nations buying enough FNMA's and GNMA's to keep demand high and rates low, despite declining credit-quality. You are underwriting Al-Quada with your home loan

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-fi-taxbreak8oct08,1,2620644.story No worky....

I have no idea how significant a tax burden mortage interest is for the extremely wealthy, but my understanding is that it only extends to mortgage debt up to $1 million dollars - so most of them probably don't get much mileage out of the current deal. However - the fact of the matter is that if you were to group the population into "homeowners" and "non-homeowners" the homeowners would undoubtedly score far higher on any assesment of prosperity and income, yet if you are a homeowner you get a tax deduction on your mortage interest on your primary home and a second home, and the same deduction on home equity loans up to $100K. There's no deduction for credit card interest or short-term loans from outfits like The Money Store - both of which low income people are more likely to rely on than home-equity loans. I think the total value of the interest deduction is 61.5 billion dollars - all of which could make quite a contribution to spending on education, social services, etc - and the deduction also favors giant mortgage companies, home builders, etc? Seems like the deduction wonderful candidate for elimination by progressive tax crusaders - yet there is no outcry - very puzzling omission IMO....