Maybe but...

Not really of much consequence, but while not everything is a 1977 computer there are a couple things that could be, and he mentions one (variant) in that article multiple times: Google glass.

If you could put on a pair of glasses that looked like regular eyeglasses but enabled some form of, augmented reality, then I suspect that would be very popular, and improved computing (and software) could make that real in the future.  The issue with Google Glass is that you are obviously wearing Google Glass, and unless you're a big fan of cosplaying as the Borg then it's probably not too appealing to you.

As a second aside, the author mentions that he thinks self-driving cars are going to be big, and while I agree that they could be possible in the future, it isn't the capability so much as implementation that I think will hold them back.  Getting people to give up control is more of a hindrance than making a vehicle capable of driving itself.  

In Which We Learn How Came To Be President Trump

This article could prove prophetic if the baby-fingered orange noise machine does win.  Also: why oh why can't we have better journalists.

Not Surprising, but Not Sure The Conclusion is Fully Warranted

So lots of people believing the rich are extra mobile and that they will leave if their [local] taxes are raised doesn't apparently make it so.  At some level the argument that high taxes drive rich people away is, on its face, ridiculous.  Look at really highly taxed places in this country--NYC, San Francisco, NJ--and guess what, more rich people live in those places than live in the low taxed places in this country (both in terms of raw numbers, and, more relevantly, proportionally). So clearly low taxes aren't very useful for retaining rich people.

I would argue that the very things that high taxes can provide: better education, more/cleaner parks, better security...are reasons that all people would want to live in those places, but since many people want to live there, those places become expensive to live in and, over time, more wealthy people end up living in them than poorer people.

That said, it isn't necessarily the case that places considering a millionaire's tax shouldn't worry that their millionaires will leave.  It's more complex than just what we currently see.  If wealthy people living in low tax states are living there in part because they are more inclined to go to low tax areas, then they will move if their taxes go up.  In the case of Florida, while they could probably get away with it, it may also be that Arizona, New Mexico and Texas would start to see a larger share of the rich who do move.

If you pay the same taxes in Arkansas as you do in Manhattan, well, New York has lots more cultural opportunities, more diverse food/entertainment, better access to airports that will shuttle one to the far corners of the world, nearby ocean, mountains, rivers...also, it has more rich people already, and the wealthy do love rubbing elbows with each other.  Arkansas does have Petit Jean State Park, which is gorgeous, but probably isn't enough to compete.

So while there's a pretty good argument that, in general, high taxes on wealthy people are not going to lead to an exodus of those same people, it is probably quite dependent on what taxes are already, where the increase would put them, and the particulars of a state/region and the rich that choose to live there.

Good (and Long) Hillary Profile

It's worth a read.  Or at least a skim.

Good Advice and a Crappy Calculator

I know that all retirement savings calculators are crappy, and this one does have a slightly better feature in the advanced settings, but it's still...bad.  It assumes that you will need 80% of your pre-retirement income in retirement, but lets you move that all the way down to...60%.  The first number is just stupid and the second not really much better.

First off, if someone is already saving 15-20% of their income that is an immediate reduction off what you obviously need.  Simple enough, right?  But then it really isn't.  First off, if you are saving, say 15% now, as you get older you should have lower expenses: kids graduate and move off, house gets paid off, student loan debt paid off (or forgiven), you finally have a completely furnished home...  That may mean more leisure expenses, but it should also mean a larger amount going to savings...at least while you are still working.  I hope that by the time I retire nearly 50% of my (our) income will be into savings (even with a bit more going to things like vacation).

Now if you want your retirement to be full of [expensive] travel, that 60-80% may be right.  On the other hand, lots of people either continue to work in reduced fashion or take up hobbies that actually provide some income (winery, antique store, restaurant), and that gives another source, so, again, the calculators are not really terribly helpful for real people in real "retirement".

There is a secondary problem.  The above is really advice pertaining to upper-middle income families.  People in the top quintile or even decile of incomes.  When you look at middle income families, a different issue takes over: being able to meet the savings requirement.  It's very easy for a 6-figure income financial adviser to tell everyone to put away 10-20% of their income.  It's a lot harder for a family making the US (family) median of $62k/year to siphon 10% off and still get by, and it may be impossible for households in the bottom two quintiles.

Perpetual Disrespected and Ignored Groups Get Pissed

Perhaps that should be the title for the 2016 presidental (primaries) election.  It's happening in both parties, and neither party is dealing with it particularly well.

On the Republican side we have Trump: an ignoramus with baby fingers on full sized palms who regularly lies and self aggrandizes whose only consistent platform is hating on [women, Hispanics, Muslims, Asians, blacks...].  The GOP has been stoking this resentment and hatred for decades, but the thing is that when they get into power they don't do as much about it as they brag, though they do shovel taxpayer dollars at rich people and the military very well.  Their voters have gotten fed up with them and the past few congressional elections should have been fair warning, but they kept going down that path and now they get Trump.

The Democratic side is not quite so bad, but it does suffer from a mirror image problem.  For quite some time now the more liberal people in this country have been, regularly, on the right side of many (most) issues, but have been told by the establishment that they are fanciful dreamers that don't understand how the world works and they should just let the people who know things handle the government.  The liberals are now beginning to get pissed.

I like Bernie Sanders, though not so much for president, and I'm not much of a Clinton fan (really neither Bill nor Hillary) but think she would do a fine job as president.  As such, the Democratic primary didn't do much for me.  But some people are just bonkers about it, and I think I sorta understand why.  It isn't that Bernie or Hillary is the greatest or that the other is a monster.  Sanders fans are, by and large, the most ignored group within the Democratic/Dem-leaning block.  They want higher taxes, more redistribution, less inequality, less war, and the Democrats we have elected these past 20ish years have all pretty much done the opposite.  Unlike Republicans, though, who pander to their supporters, Democrats tend to patronize theirs, there's even a term for it: hippy punching.

When people get ignored repeatedly by those who are supposed to be representing them, they tend, over time to either get pissed or just drop out.  Historically the ignored on the Democratic side have dropped out (to a greater extent than Republicans*), so Republicans typically win larger shares of the elections than they are shares of the electorate or the population at large (gerrymandering makes it worse, but the GOP is more likely to show up to vote anyway).  Whether it's just normal societal trend or something that has been pushed thanks to the internet, this year more of the ignored liberals are pissed.

I'm not sure how this is going to manifest itself over time, but the Democratic establishment/leaders should probably be careful.  There is some evidence they are, since even as people like Krugman continue a campaign to insult and isolate Sander's supporters, Clinton supporters who are also elected officials know better.  On NPR they were interviewing [don't remember...McCaskill?] and she made a point of saying the energy and the people that Sanders was bringing into the campaign were good things, and she supports Clinton.

The direction of the Democratic party is toward Bernie Sanders.  If the leaders of this party want to keep it from breaking up they need to really embrace the ideas behind it.  Clinton will get the nod at the DNC.  When she does, if she turns and runs and governs as GOP light as so many Democrats have been doing the past couple decades,then she is going to have to face a similar type of shit-storm to that which the GOP is seeing this year.  The good news is that governing like the Democratic base wants would actually be popular (though not to Wall Street types), and without the racist/chauvinist problem to go with that the GOP has.

*Frightening note: one particular group of GOP-leaning people have dropped out and Trump actually seems to be getting them to the polls: white supremacists.

_________'s Supporters Are THE WORST!

Yes, Hillary is a weak candidate, but she's going to win.  Yes, Bernie's campaign is somewhat confusing at this point, but there are reasons to stay in it.

What really has been bugging me about the Democratic primaries is how stupid/horrible the supporters of the respective candidates are.  Yes, that shows up in comments sections the most, but even some of the higher profile "professional" supporters are pretty awful to the other side, and usually in counter-productive fashion.  Krugman is the one I have mentioned (repeatedly).  After I read any of his anti-Bernie columns/posts I just dislike Hillary more.  That is not helpful.  It isn't compelling.  It's just pissing people off because you disagree with them.  It's more likely to make them stay home in November, and you don't want that.

Stop being fucking horrible to people who you need to be on your side (or your candidate's side).

Improved Corporate Taxation

Good read on the different economies at work in the US at The American Prospect.  It seems like this could be fixed without directly changing the minimum wage (though that is probably easiest).  Since all wages are reported to the government for tax purposes it would be pretty easy to see where people work who receive aid (welfare, Medicaid, food stamps, EITC) and then send supplemental tax bills to those companies.  If Wal-Mart employees get $10 billion in tax benefits because they don't get paid enough, then Wal-Mart gets a $10 billion bill from government to cover it...after corportate taxes are paid (i.e. it does not reduce their corporate tax bill, while improved wages would).

Won't happen and would likely be a pain in the ass to implement, but a man can dream.  Really though: just raise the minimum wage.

Tiny Houses are Fun But Not That Useful

I am a fan of tiny houses, and the idea of one for a cabin in the woods is kind of compelling, but they aren't really great ideas for real living.  This article tries to "make a case against" them, but such case is not really well made.

It's true that the tiny house is particularly bad for cities, but there are some cases for which it could be more useful: mother-in-law suites or rental units (zoning issues), park "cabins".  A lot of the actual stated use for these homes, however, could be equally well made for RV's and trailer/mobile homes. So what's the real deal?

I think there is a pretty big snob factor.  RV's and actual inexpensive houses in the country (whether trailer or prefab...or small old row homes, though that last has gotten trendy in the past 15 yrs or so) tend to carry a stigma, partly from their appearance but more from the people who use them, which in the former case tend to be old and the latter case poor.  Younger to middle aged people with middle incomes don't see themselves as part of the RV group or as trailer [trash] either.  Hence: tiny houses, that look a lot like regular houses, just shrunk down.

Really, though, other than bragging rights, there isn't really much benefit to shrinking down below a certain point--say 300 sq.ft. plus 100 sq.ft. per person. In fact a larger house with more people in it is likely to be more efficient than separate smaller houses for individual people, which shouldn't be surprising, as that explains why people get roommates...and why adding family members (having children) becomes cheaper (per child) as the # increases.

Still, they are cute, and it can be fun to envision that tiny house in some expansive setting: the ocean, mountains...but really, if you can afford the land, you can build a better, more efficient home, and if you just want to move it to different places: get an RV...some of those are pretty cute too.

Also, I appreciate the push-back against the gargantuan.  3000+ square foot homes are, frankly, insane, unless you have 7 kids.  Also, most of the really large homes are so full of useless space and awkward layouts, that a 3200 sq. ft. house is functionally equivalent to an efficiently laid out 1500 sq ft house. "Here we have a 150 sq. ft. entryway, where no one will ever hang out, that has vaulted ceilings and impossible to clean nooks, which still needs to be heated and cooled..." Lots of extra volume to heat and cool (and fill with crap, and clean).  I don't get it.  If you're going to have a house that size you should at least have secret passages/hidden rooms.  The amount of dead space and oversized rooms in modern mcmansions is just stupid.

Soda/Sin Taxes

Philly's new liberal mayor wants a soda tax, the proceeds of which go to fund (pre-K) education.  Sounds nice, but there's a problem: sin taxes are regressive.  In and of itself that isn't a reason not to do them. Sin taxes do serve dual purposes: more money and discouraging "bad" behavior.  They are particularly useful when the funding received from the sin tax is directed toward treatment or other programs that are related (say rehab for alcoholism, or medical treatment for type 2 diabetic patients).   When that funding is directed to a non-related program that will then rely on the bad behavior to be funded there is a bit of a problem.

It is much better to tax people differentially with higher taxes for wealthier individuals, however, in PA there's a bit of our constitution that prevents anyone in the state from doing progressive taxation.  It seems to me like it should also prevent regressive taxation, but either it doesn't or that's harder to "prove" legally.  So all our taxes are flat: income (actually wage), sales, property...

I think Gov. Wolf had a plan to make our state taxes more progressive with a bit of a work around (everyone is taxed at a higher rate, but then everyone gets an equal dollar value refund or credit or something).  I would like to see something like that done: up the rate to 7% then give everyone a $2k credit and so the first ~$29k of income is effectively untaxed.  Considering our current state tax rate pretty much anyone making less than $60k would get a bit of a tax break and people making more than that would pay more.

Still, not sure that the city could get away with doing something like that (the state seems to be able to stop Philly from doing pretty much anything the state legislators don't like...even if it has zero effect on them or their districts).  The soda tax is not the best option out there but it may be the best option available to the city.

Yea, but...No

This is such a poor article that I would expect the by line to have been one of Vox's frequent contributors rather than their core staff (and Dylan Matthews at that).  I certainly believe that that the studies countering the original study are valid, and that the original study is likely flawed but the conclusion drawn is not really pushed back on by the rebuttals.

First off, in straight numbers: if 10% of the population is winning 50% of the time (when there is a difference) then that is direct evidence that their share of influence is greater than their position, and it validates the other study, does not counter it. (Yes, the 0 influence of the other is countered, but winning 50% of the time when you make up a much larger fraction of the electorate is losing badly.)

Second, the methodology is questionable (possibly of the original as well, but certainly of the rebuttals).  There are lots of bills that go through congress, and there may be differences of opinion on any of them, but you really want to isolate the ones that one group or another particularly cares about.  Next, the top 10% probably isn't really the most relevant group here, since a big fraction are professionals who may have some issues that really focus on them, but when discussing the oligarchy you really want to focus on a much smaller subset, and it is most likely the top 0.01% that is of the most relevance.  That is a group that is much more impacted by legislation pertaining to how the economy works.  Finally, it is legislation pertaining to how the economy works, not even mainstream issues like taxes and social security that are the problematic issues.  Focusing on "economic issues" is not really telling as the category is so broad as to be irrelevant.  The way the extremely wealthy influence policy is not the big bill but the little amendment, or exclusion to law.  The Trans Pacific Partnership is actually a fair thing to look at, but not as a free trade issue as much as how it is a bill to enforce US Copyright/Patent protections abroad (more than just that but good example).

There is also a bit of a point in there regarding interest groups and how they do get more of what they want, but while the original study separated interest groups into pro-business and pro-public, the rebuttals don't.  Since it is through interest groups that wealthy can influence it seems odd for the rebuttal studies to group all of them together and say that the wealthy don't have much influence because influence groups do...which groups do and who controls/supports them is very relevant.

Finally, Dylan is very oddly dismissive of the points made by the original authors.  Their points were along the lines above and are quite relevant.  Perhaps there is an issue with their original study, but the conclusion is hardly countered by the three rebuttal studies referenced here.  Statistics can tell important stores, but they can also be used to hide important truths.  If the very wealthy only care deeply about 1% of issues that come up, though they will certainly have opinions on the rest, and that 1% all goes their way, then they got everything they wanted.  The rest is noise that hides the important aspect of who dictates legislation.

Good God Not Again

Dear Paul Krugman,

Please stop saying stupid things.

Respectfully,
A Liberal

Yea, the Berniebros are pretty ignorant of facts, and I really don't get Sanders's campaign at this point (I think I read a theory on why...something about more delegates meaning having a stronger position for determining the party platform).  On the other hand, the "center-left" thought the Iraq war was a good idea.  They supported financial deregulation that gave us the financial crisis and lesser depression.  More recently they wanted to make a deal with Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare because grand bargain mysticism rules them.  The [professional] center-left is hardly the home of "intellectual values".

Of course there are fact challenged liberals and other left wing types.  The more progressive activists of the Democratic party tend to be anti-GMO, and think that organic and local = sustainable.  There's also a lot of anti-nuclear [power] that tends to be more left-wing.  But, fortunately I think, those types are a (loud) minority within the party.  The liberal sphere of our politics is, as a whole pro-science, pro-facts, and pro-intellect.  So the saying "facts have a well known liberal bias" is accurate, but the second you try and subdivide the left you leave yourself very open to the failings of whichever branch you have decided is the bearer of The Truth.

The center left has some pretty fucking horrible failings.  Way out there left wing nuts may have some kooky aspects, but no one has ever listened to them...even when they have been right.

Astronomical Scales Are Hard To Imagine

Enjoyed reading this article on Mercury, but it reminded me how difficult astronomical scales are to imagine.

This is how we are often showed an image of the solar system:

Or somewhat less obviously distorted like this:

Either of these images badly distorts the sizes of the planets, but they also badly distort the size of the sun.  Even actual images of Mercury against the sun are hard to reconcile with real distances and sizes. This image makes it look like Mercury is very close to the sun (and oddly enough makes it look larger, relative to the sun than it actually is):

Try this image:

Those circles are orbits to scale, and the yellow dot in the center?  That's the sun also to scale.  The sun is huge but Mercury (black circle) orbits at a distance of 0.38 a.u., which is 41x the diameter of the sun--Venus is the gold circle, Earth blue and Mars red.  Also, none of the planets are visible at this scale.  The largest of this group, Earth, is .01 times the diameter of the sun, so if that sun were 100 pixels wide, Earth would be 1.

So as close as mercury is to the sun, it's still a fair distance (relative to the size of the sun), and the sun does not fill its sky (if you were on the surface of Mercury the sun would appear a bit less than 3x the diameter--9x the area--than it does here on Earth).

That last image isn't as nice to look at but our MASSIVE sun is still a tiny dot compared with the orbits of even the very close planets in our stellar system.  The outer planets make these orbitals seem small, and our entire planetary system is a speck in the Milky Way which is less than a spec in the universe overall.

Dept. of Late Comebacks

It would have been great if she could have responded: "That's ok, I prefer to give my money to decent human beings..."  Or even "Hope your don't end up requiring the aid of a liberal surgeon with your disposition."

Valid Point, Poor Article

I kind of agree with the point of this article about smug liberalism, but the article itself doesn't do a very good job of conveying the point (and you can probably look to this other Vox article for a good reason why).

There is certainly a fair amount of smug disdain from [more liberal] Democrats toward large elements of the Republican base, but pointing out all the ways that liberals are, in fact, correct, and that liberal positions have more soundly reasoned grounds is a poor way to convey that.  Further, the Kim Davis example is particularly problematic since liberal women (see; Clinton, Pelosi, Sotomayor) are quite regularly attacked for their looks.

The problem is not that liberals are right and conservatives are wrong. The problem is that the Republican party itself is not interested in governing or allowing for government to function.  It isn't ideology.

The problem is that people who don't agree, broadly, with the Democratic party don't have a capable, competent party to turn to.  They have to vote Republican or not at all.  Small parties like the Greens and Libertarians don't have sufficient standing to really impact things.

I am quite liberal myself, but I know that, aside from questions of fact (which are real, not smugness) there are other approaches to most problems/situations that I disagree with but which certainly can be valid.  There is not really a home for those positions any more.

People who don't like Democratic positions have a choice between a party they don't agree with and one that is full of extremists, reactionaries and racists, and some of those people, who may be none of those things, will nevertheless vote for that party because they see it as the lesser of two evils...which, frankly is also what a lot of Democratic voters do.

Good Post By Krugman on Sanders/Clinton

Since I've given Paul Krugman lots of shit about many of his anti-Bernie columns I feel obligated to give kudos to a good anti-Bernie column.  (Yes, despite the fact that he has no idea that I've been giving him shit nor would he care if he did know.)

I pretty much got his point of view from earlier columns but they were very dismissive of any point of view that would lead someone to support Sanders over Clinton, which, frankly is what is relevant.  We are not looking at these two candidates vs. Platonic forms but vs. each other, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to select either candidate depending on your personal preferences/ideas.

I also agree with Krugman's problems with Sanders, but I'm not sure I agree so much with him on Clinton.  I think it is quite possible she learned the wrong lessons from Iraq and the financial crisis...not nothing as with Republicans, but still not the right lessons.

Didn't Watch But...

From what I'm hearing (and reading) the Democratic debate last night was a disaster.  Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee, but she also looks like the weaker general election candidate (and as this has gone on, weaker Democratic primary candidate).  There are perfectly logical reasons for that.

Clinton is a mainstream Democrat.  She is actually to the right of most of the Democratic base, and that should position her well for a general election run.  This year, however, being mainstream is a big negative.  Outside of the DC political class, most people across the spectrum are not happy with the way the government is [not] working right now, and mainstream candidates are symbols of the broken system.  For Republicans that means Trump and Cruz are dominant.  For Democrats, who are far more diverse (demographically and with respect to their disposition) don't much go for crazy, but there is a large group of left leaning voters who want to see someone different.  I suspect they would have gone ape shit for Warren, but Sanders is right there for most of them.

Aside from insider/outsider appearance, there is also the actual policy positions of Americans vs. historical party positions.  Most Americans would have loved to see the big banks broken up and (ir)responsible CEO's forced to pay back their obscene salaries if not outright jailed.  Clinton took huge speaking fees from them.  Now pretty much everyone (at least everyone with a remotely coherent thought on the subject) knows the Iraq war was a immense mistake.  Clinton voted for it, yes, but more recently she has been reliably more hawkish than many other Democrats, and far more so than the party base. These are big issues, and the former is even a big issue to Republican voters who are more likely to see Clinton as friendly to big banks than Trump (not true, but that's going to be the perception).

There is also--obviously and wrongly--a huge anti-Hillary bias among much of the population.  They're mostly Republicans, but lots of independents and even a fair number of Democrats too and those latter groups are a danger: if it's Hillary vs. Trump they're the most likely group to switch sides or stay home.

Then there is the demographic issue that doesn't help Clinton come the general election.  Her supporters are older, have voted regularly, and are almost certainly going to vote in November for the Democrat on the ballot.  Sanders' supporters skew young, with far more who have never voted before, and they are excited by Bernie himself.  If he is not on the ballot in November there is a much better chance that more of his supporters will just stay home.  Clinton might not need them (especially if Cruz is the nominee) but with her other general election negatives it would definitely be better to have them.

At this point in the contest, Bernie Sanders should be helping line up his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee in November, and continuing attacks on Hillary Clinton isn't going to do that.  Clinton also needs to make nice with Sanders supporters and her going after Sanders himself isn't going to do that.  This debate seems like one that should have taken place 2+ months ago, while those earlier debates which were far more warm and fuzzy should have been the one last night.

Not Really All that Different

I think the line of argument Atrios is complaining about here is a natural response to differentiating between two people who really aren't that much different.  Yes, there are real (and I think significant) differences between Hillary and Bernie, but they are really quite insignificant compared with the differences between them and any Republican or them and Trump.

I think Hillary would be better at the logistics of the presidency and Bernie would be better at mobilizing [Democratic] base voters, which could move the legislative window of the possible a bit more liberal.  Obviously I am more aligned with Bernie in terms of policy, particularly foreign, but I don't feel strongly enough to try too hard to persuade others...and I have strong opinions.  I think the people trying to persuade are picking nits and most people don't care, so it becomes frustrating and then they lash out.

There is a caveat to not caring and it is the general election.  I think lots of Democrats view a Trump nomination as gifting Dems the White House, and my concern is that Dem and Dem sympathizing voters will become too complacent.  In a Trump vs. Clinton matchup, between the (irrational but widespread) loathing of all things Clinton (and, yes, Hillary in particular, and in part because she's a woman) and lots of complacency because "Oh, Trump can't possibly win" mentality I can see him winning that election.

The presidency of the United States should not be a joke.

Changing Science

I'm curious to see what the results are from Vox's asking people how they would change science.  In my opinion there are lots of little things that could be better, but much of the problems faced by science today has more to do with funding and money than any other single item.  In particular, I think that the common use of science departments as piggy banks for universities cuts off a lot of potential science, and hurts science education at those universities.

My solution is simple: better funding of public universities (general funds, not department specific).  I submitted a [poorly organized] response to them to that end.  The funding of universities (and science) is very complex, but the dramatic relative cuts in funding from states have led to the business style administrations that are more common than they used to be.  Universities need a lot of money to operate.  Some comes from student tuition and fees, some from private donations/endowments, some from grants and some (particularly for public/state schools) comes from government funding.

It used to be that quite a bit came from government funding (yes, I could probably find out how much but this is not a research paper), but the combination of decades of Republican tax cuts (which require subsequent spending cuts) compounded by the current lesser depression has shrunk that part down.  Costs keep going up, however, and schools need to make up the difference.  So tuition has risen...sharply, but that isn't enough. One of the places a university can find extra money is the grants that professors are awarded.

There are some different ways that universities get money from professor grants, but for every ten dollars of granted funds a university may get $3-5 of that.  (Note: grants aren't all specified the same way.  Sometimes a $1M grant means that the professor gets $500-700k, sometimes it means the professor gets $1M and the grant will pay the university whatever over that is necessary to make sure the professor gets the award total).  Science grants are particularly nice ways to get money since they tend to be larger than grants in other departments/colleges.  Some of this is because of the often expensive equipment necessary for science.  Some of it is personnel, and some of it is, honestly, a value judgement.  Most people consider science research more "wothwhile" compared to, say, humanities or fine arts research.  (There is a bit of economics at play too, since there can be some financial rewards via technological advancement, but that often does not flow back to the grantor--particularly when the grantor is the government--it may, however, flow back to the university.)

The fact that science departments can be seen as profit centers for the university has some [potential] consequences.  Most obvious is the publish or perish mentality, though that would probably be better reworded as "get funded or get out".  While publications were once the hallmark of quality the number and quantity of grants fills that roll today.  That isn't inherently bad, or it wouldn't be in a world where quality research could always find funding, but that isn't the world we live in.

Yet even accepting that there is another problem: established professors, have an easier time maintaining funding and getting new funding than those starting out.  There are also "superstar" professors who have become funding juggernauts.  This is easy to understand since bigger name professors tend to get higher quality students/post docs who do good work (sometimes developing that work) which further advances the name/opportunities of the professor.  There are ebbs and flows and, again, this isn't by itself terrible since it can still lead to really good science, but the financial power these professors have at the universities has some downsides.

One is they often can negotiate contracts where they teach very little (sometimes not at all).  Ok, yea, they are teaching their grad students/post docs but someone still needs to teach the undergrad classes/labs. That means hiring more profs, but they can also demand large salaries against a university that needs their money in part because they aren't funded well enough, and that can mean less cash for other professors, so now instead of hiring a tenure-track position, they are hiring adjuncts: basically glorified post docs that get minimal salary and poor to no benefits.  PhD's teaching science as adjuncts at universities can be compensated more poorly than our under-compensated high school teachers.

Another issue with these super-profs is that their talents (mostly the one for getting lots of grant money to roll in) are in high demand.  The number of senior positions available at universities is larger than ever, while the number of entry level tenure-track positions is dwindling.  So while well funded big name professors can go pretty much wherever they want, aspiring researchers have to fight a lot harder just to get in the door.  (Note: large private research institutions still do hire a fair number of entry levels, but getting that job a Harvard, which has always been difficult, is even harder today since there are fewer StateU positions to go around.)

I should add in: super-profs are great.  They nurture talent, their labs can be sources for scientific breakthroughs, they can be good for public outreach (more of a mixed bag here but still).  Were it not for universities being desperate to get more money these profs would still exist, but the universities they work at would not be so beholden to them, and more people would have the chance to find their way to that roll.  Also, maybe the students would be getting better education.

Journalistic Neutrality

Further my last post/comment is this Greenwald article.  I think that there is another side of the coin which is journalistic objectivity, which is also probably not historically representative (especially if you go back a century or two) but which is important and is fairly rare to find today.

Objectivity and Neutrality sound like similar things--and I think the big media outlets operate as though they are the same--but they are not and they have dramatically different effects on how journalism [could] work.  Neutrality is everything Greenwald describes: it is failing to say an obviously bad thing is bad or that an obviously good thing is good. Objectivity requires mediation that understands facts and counters lies.

I think Vox generally tries to be objective, and sometimes but not always neutral.  CNN certainly pushes neutrality often at the expense of objectivity.  MSNBC is fairly show dependent: Maddow and Hayes are fairly objective (though with a definite point of view), Matthews is neutral and not really objective (and most likely thinks of himself as such), O'Donnell and Scarborough are really neither but again they take on airs as though they are.  Fox is neither neutral nor objective.  

Most of the bigger left leaning journalistic entities are more objective than not (fairly easy since most facts align well with more liberal positions).

In the case of journalist as mediator (whether between people as in a debate or just when relaying a story managing to convey relevant facts and appropriate conclusions) objectivity is obviously quite important.  For other types of journalism, namely opinion pieces, it seems like it would be less so but that isn't really the case.  Even opinion pieces should be supported by facts, and claims of relevance that are both true and appropriate.  It's why I have been bitching a bit about some of Krugman's recent pieces, and that's why pretty much nothing on Fred Haitt's crayon scribble page is worth the effort of reading.