Tag: yep

How not to succeed in academia

A magnificently honest, accurate portrayal of life in science…and coming to realize it is time to walk away from same:

So, what went wrong? There are a great many alluring things about an academic scientist’s lifestyle that are simultaneously liberating and dangerous. The best of these are that you can work pretty much whenever you like, on whatever is interesting; the flip side is that “whenever you like” often translates into “all the time,” and “interesting” is a matter of who you’re talking to. For the first 5 years or so, I loved the freedom of being a scientist in what was touted as a meritocracy. I did work very hard, and I got somewhere […]

However, I was always hampered by self-doubt. My initial conviction – essential for anyone who wants to make it as a scientist – that I could really make a difference, maybe even win a few prizes and get famous, eroded when I realized that my brain was simply not wired like those of the phalanx of Nobelists I met over the years; I was never going to be original enough to be a star. This early realization, combined with a deep-seated lack of self-confidence, meant that I was useless at self-promotion and networking. I would go to conferences and hide in corners, never daring to talk to the speakers and the big shots. I never managed, as an infinitely more successful friend put it, “to piss in all the right places.”

All I have to say to that is: yep. Painful but (usually) true. The realization is half the battle. There’s a nice little career to be had while not being a shatteringly important thinker in your field. At least I hope there is…

via commonunity

How not to succeed in academia

Defazio Bears Attention

TPM reports:

Rep. Peter Defazio (D-OR) proposes that people be allowed to opt out of the insurance mandate altogether – but if they do, they will not be allowed to free-ride on the new health care system.

Under his plan, a person opting out “must file an ‘affidavit of personal responsibility’ with the state exchange. Such a filing will waive their rights to: 1) Enroll in a health insurance exchange; 2) Enroll in Medicaid if otherwise made eligible; and 3) Discharge health care related debt under Chapter 7 bankruptcy law,” DeFazio wrote in a letter to colleagues Tuesday.

Under his plan, if a person wants back into the system, they’d need to buy insurance on their own, out of pocket, for five years. The idea here, and with other, similar plans, is to moot one of the constitutional complaints about the mandate – that it penalizes “inactivity.”

Exactly. No doubt the legions of “go die in the streets” conservatives who are morally wounded by the very concept of the individual mandate are lining up to cosponsor this. Right? Right?

Defazio Bears Attention

Status Quo, Everyone!

In one of the great surprises of the era, meaningful filibuster reform is going nowhere and Ezra Klein reports that:

…this process kicked off because Democrats were furious at Republican abuse of the filibuster. It’s ended with Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the filibuster is here to stay.[…] Both parties are more committed to being able to obstruct than they are to being able to govern. That fundamental preference, as much as any particular rule, is why the Senate is dysfunctional.

Indeed. Under the agreement we do get a few nice things, in that secret holds will apparently go away, there’s a big cut in the total number of appointees that the Senate must approve, and there will be no more of this “read the bill” nonsense.

Anyone that believes that the next time the GOP has the Senate and the Presidency and but also lacks a 61 vote majority, whether or not McConnell himself is still around and running the GOP Senate, that they won’t instantly eliminate the filibuster using a simple majority vote at the start of a new Congress is smoking something. And nary a peep will be made on that day about today’s “agreement.” That would be shrill.

It would do nothing to the august nature of the Senate to require actual debate take place to uphold a filibuster, and furthermore to put the onus of that continuing operation on the minority. Instead, we punish the majority, and often times the vast majority, on whom today rests the need to fight off constant quorum calls and schedule the entire legislative year around various “marination” periods that automatically and interminably ensue any time any actual action starts to happen. It is just incredible that this malignant process, one that arose by chance and error in the first place, was deemed “too good to do away with.”

Incredible, but all too indicative of the era.

Status Quo, Everyone!

Ryan warns that if we don’t deal with our fiscal problems, we’ll have to raise taxes and cut benefits for seniors. So what can we do to reduce the deficit? Well, government spending is dominated by the big 5: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense, and interest payments; you can’t make a significant dent in the deficit without either raising taxes or cutting those big 5. Defense is untouchable, says the GOP; so that leaves the entitlement programs. And 2.7 of the three entitlement programs are benefits to seniors (70 percent of Medicaid spending goes on seniors).

So let’s see: to avoid cuts in benefits to seniors, we must … cut benefits to seniors.

I’m reasonably sure that Ryan hasn’t thought any of this through.

Paul Krugman hedging like Lehman on that “reasonably.”

Random Thought #371

politicalprof:

It should be remembered that no one—and I mean no one, of any party—who advocates more tax cuts for Americans, whether businesses or individuals, is serious about solving the American national deficit. The only reasonable response to anyone who follows a statement about the need to reduce or cure the United States’ national debt with a statement about the importance of more tax cuts is to laugh at them until snot runs out of your nose.

That this isn’t already the widespread response and being ceaseless spread and solidified by Democratic operatives as politicians of all stripes take to the hustings come 2012 is precisely why the Democrats fail. Period.

Until they accomplish that one thing: lancing the festering boil that begins with the merely foolish Laffer Curve and ends now with the grade-A, unadulterated horseshit in which tax cuts never even need to be budgeted for, and then successfully turn all of that into a massive and truly, viscerally horrifying joke that all representatives of the Tea Klan and their GOP enablers must run, run from at each and every stop (see: “maximum acceleration on BullshitOne, Charlie, they’ve got the pitchforks out here too!”), well, until that day: we’ll get precisely nowhere in this country.

Beyond Medicare, the major drivers of the deficits are not talked about so much by the fat cats and demagogues because they were either responsible for them, or are reaping gargantuan benefits from them, or both. The country is drowning in a sea of debt because of the obscene Bush tax cuts for the rich, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that have never been paid for and the Great Recession.

Bob Herbert, saying what so many others seemingly find so very hard to face or admit. This is who we are, and it’s critical that we face it.
Yapping about Social Security and the necessity of cuts to same is just that: yapping. The money is in Medicare (as in: controlling the costs of) and the Bush tax cuts (as in: all of them, even those marginally aimed at the middle class). Solve those two and get employment rolling and everything else that today seems utterly intractable will simply melt away. Even better: the Bush tax cuts will solve themselves if we can just muster the will to let them.

And this is precisely why the Senate should have no other business until the debt ceiling vote. Alright, who wants to vote against the liver? Anyone against the liver? Next, the kidney. One or a pair? How about one lung, one kidney? Can we agree on that civilly?

…the attempted assassination of a sitting member of Congress is inherently political, and politics is the process by which democracies negotiate the solutions to public problems. Conservatives know this. If the shooter had been a member of a Mexican drug cartel as some conservatives assumed, they would be calling for stricter immigration laws and blaming the White House for lax enforcement. If the shooter had been named “Mohammed,” no amount of evidence of mental illness would have persuaded conservatives that Islam wasn’t the culprit, and that the administration’s terrorism policies had failed. Instead, the shooter appears to have lurked on the extremist fringe of right-wing politics, much like Byron Williams and James von Brunn, and so conservatives are calling for a calm and reasoned assessment of the facts. The guilt is individual, rather than collective.

Adam Serwer
To which I add: yep.