Erich -

These are good questions, but see my two other comments in this thread.

I could care less about defending this girl, and I can certainly agree it was stupid to send out any tweet about race or AIDS that could in any way be misconstrued.

But that doesn't change the fact (I believe) that people ARE misconstruing it.

As I've noted, the tweet makes far more sense if you read it as sarcasm, and imagine the girl giving an eye-roll as she says it.

Again, one can still say it was stupid, especially for a PR professional. But while that would suggest that she (at least occasionally) has bad professional judgement, having poor judgement is much less of a sexy crime than being a racist.

(And note that, if you read the tweet as sarcasm, it would in fact suggest she is anti-racism, since she was *parodying* what she sees as racist ideas).

lllll AJ

SCHecklerX -

Actually, as I noted in my comment upthread, that's the only context in which the tweet itself makes any sense.

I have no interest in "spinning" it. I'm not a progressive, and I suspect this girl is. I think she expected that her "followers" all knew her to a certain degree, and would know she was being sarcastic.

People should try this: Read the tweet in question. Then, read it again, this time picturing the girl rolling her eyes as she says it. Takes on completely different meaning, doesn't it?

lllll AJ

Jah-Wren -

You are right, and 95 percent of the super-justified, self-righteous commenters on here are just making themselves sound foolish.

The tweet only makes sense as a work of sarcasm -- like walking outside during a rainstorm and saying "Wow -- great day!" In person, the way you convey sarcasm is with a turn of voice and an eyeroll. We all do things like this all the time. It's just that allowance for this type of expression don't exist on Twitter.

I am not a progressive and have little sympathy for that worldview. But it's relatively obvious to me that this girl is a progressive who was sarcastically *parodying* the white-privilege view put forth in her tweet. She obviously thought her "followers" would understand that.

This fact, which you've picked up on, has gone over the heads of nearly everyone else here. No one even wants to stop for a second and actually think about it.

lllll AJ

"Adminstrative Costs are the problem."

Well, no, they're not. They're a SYMPTOM of the problem, that is causing many people to confuse cause and effect.

It's not "Rising administrative costs cause universities to charge more."

It's "Increased demand, propelled by government subsidization of costs (i.e., cheap loans), allows universities to raise prices to the point where they can afford to spend lavishly."

lllll AJ

Yeah, pretty much exactly what I was going to say. His comments are mostly spot on. But, the government is ALWAYS harmful? Even the most hard-core libertarians don't believe THAT.

lllll AJ

Ah -- the Law of Unintended Consequences strikes again!

This is exactly what classical, supply-and-demand economics would predict.

Most of us understand why the government can't just print more money. The price of everything would just go up.

This is exactly the same scenario. The only difference is that in this case, the government is printing a special kind of money -- money that can only be used for one thing. It is no surprise when then price of that thing just goes up accordingly.

Subsidies (i.e., cheap loans) increase demand. Increased demand causes the price to rise.

Consider:

* The US massively subsidizes education. The price of education rises far beyond the rate of inflation.

* The US massively subsidizes housing. The price of housing rises far beyond the rate of education.

* The US massively subsidizes health care. The price of health care rises far beyond the rate of inflation. (Except, of course, the kinds of health care -- like cosmetic surgery -- that do not typically get subsidized. Costs in these areas have plummeted.)

I don't pretend to have an answer to this dilemma. The only really clear thing is that the laws of supply and demand aren't *statutory* laws, that can just be altered with a pen and a lot of hand-waving. They are fundamental natural laws, and well-intentioned attempts to manipulate markets (from student loans to price-control regimes) almost always trigger equal and opposite consequences.

The real shame is that important issues like these are so easily demagogued. Even though the system is clearly broken, no politician in his right mind would ever propose changing it. "Look!" people would scream. "He hates education! And poor people!"

Rates have never been lower, and congress has never bee more corruptible.

I'm not disagreeing with you -- mostly I agree with you -- but I think you skipped the most important thing. Government has never been more powerful, which means lobbying has never been so worthwhile -- indeed, necessary. Centralizing power and decision-making makes it obvious where wealthy parties should be making their investments: at the center. That's why of America's 10 wealthiest counties, six of them surround Washington DC.

Also -- I thought it odd that every single thing you presented in your second paragraph as a hypothetical is in fact already happening all around us (carbon sequestration and other Solyndra-type debacles, higher-priced fuel formulations, huge research grants, etc.).

lllll Alaska Jack

Grishnakh -- HEAR HEAR HEAR!!

Exactly the same reaction. WTF? Has this guy ever actually lived anywhere else, or is he just spewing out what he knows surely MUST be true?

I've been all around the United States. It is possible that places like the ones he describe exist? Sure, I guess. Is it the norm, or even common?

No. No it's not.

lllll aj

If my understanding is correct -- and I don't pretend to be an expert on this -- the summary is pretty misleading. It's not that China is a white knight crusading for green energy. It's that China is doing EVERYTHING: Green, nuclear, coal, you name it.

Googling around ("china coal plants") suggest that China is opening a new coal plant at a rate of one per WEEK. They built as many coal plants as exist in the entirety of Texas + Ohio **in 2011 alone**.

(Also, let me state the obvious. In China, the government has great power. It can use this power to accomplish big things. Some of these things are good. Many are bad. Use state media and censorship to give the population one side of story? Check. Decide you need a big dam, so just evict 1.3 million people and ravage the local environment? Say no more -- done. Artificially surpress the standard of living of a billion people to subsidize trade? Hey, to make an omelette you gotta crack a few eggs.)

lllll aj

Drooling Dog --

I don't necessarily concede your point -- I don't know if House Republicans have in fact been trying to slash climate research funding.

But in the bigger picture, it hardly matters. Climate research around the world is funded to the tune of billions every year. I mean, seriously -- of all scientific fields, climate research, of all things, is hardly lacking for funding. It's a huge, highly visible area of massive public interest. Does that mean every researcher gets every grant they want? I assume not. But let's be realistic here. Every large university in the world is pumping out climate research.

lllll AJ

Good lord -- I thought the mods were retarded today BEFORE I saw this post.

"When things get too out of balance"?!?! Allow me to mentally wander back to the old techno-libertarian days of Slashdot, when goofy claptrap like this would have been MERCILESSLY MOCKED, not modded "interesting."

The Chicxulub impact -- did the asteroid somehow sense that things down on Earth were "too out of balance"? Did it think: "Hmm... I'll take care of this!"

lllll AJ