Getty Images
We talked last week about an unfortunate phenomenon: congressional Republicans pointing to government spending they consider wasteful, which turns out to be money well spent under closer inspection. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) offers another fun example.
On Fox News on Thursday night, Paul said the military has spent $5.2 million studying goldfish and advocated yanking funding for such programs to cut the budget.
"In the military they have $5.2 million they spent on goldfish -- studying goldfish to see how democratic they were and if we could learn about democracy from goldfish," Paul said on Fox. "I would give the president the authority to go ahead and cut all $5 million in goldfish studies."
At first blush, Paul sounds like he has a point, right? If policymakers are looking for funding to cut, $5.2 million to "learn about democracy from goldfish" seems excessive, at least at first blush.
But Princeton science professor Iain Couzin filled in some of the gaps to Poltico: "[Paul] got the funding wrong and the species wrong, and he misrepresents the work we've done."
Apparently, the research has nothing to do with learning about "democracy" from goldfish -- they're not even goldfish -- but rather, is intended to "lead to advances in technology for robots that work on deep sea oil spills and radioactive leaks."
Couzin said the research has "direct applications to human security," adding, "Perhaps Sen. Paul should read our papers before he comments on them and perhaps he should consider more broadly how science can help society."
To be sure, that's a worthwhile suggestion, but Paul wants to condemn research, not read it. There's no reason to let information get in the way of perfectly good rhetoric.
Leave a Comment:
Maybe Paul should consider teaching a Learning Annex course about self accreditation.
Fool, Liar, Conjurer and Thief!
You got the troll part right in your name.
You can't talk about fiscally conservative policies so you make personal attacks.
16.4 trillion dollars in debt and you want to protect every dime of spending. You are the problem.
Randal Paul's medical license is active and the fact that he fights against a hypocritical ophthalmology board who refuses to take their own tests is awesome.
On the contrary, I am completely in favor of sequestration, if only to cut military spending for the first time in anybodies life. It's got a commie/liberal slant to it from a troll like myself however you might compare the underlying intent to "conservatism". I'm kettle, you must be pot..
2partyscam,
Any plan to address deficits and debt needs to deal in hundreds of billions of dollars, not five million dollars. This will require both dramatic reductions in defense and other discretionary spending AND tax increases.
Mr Paul is misrepresenting a 5 million dollar research grant in order to appear to be doing something while avoiding dealing with the deficit.
It's not the dollar amount that is the salient factor in this story. If Rand Paul has a problem with spending $5.2 million on a study that has national security implications, then he needs to defend that position. Instead, he's pandering to his base by saying something HE KNOWS IS NOT TRUE. I wonder why he would do that?
All three of you guy/gals need to go look at the " penny plan" that Randal Paul endorses.
Warfare and Welfare will all have to be trimmed back.
I find it odd that progressives who gripe and moan about the military all day long have a Senator who supports cutting from all the sacred cows that are bankrupting our nation and you try to smear him and discredit his work of balancing the budget.
As a nation, we need to control the spending.
Rand Paul does this, and you want to tear the guy to shreds when he is the taxpayer's only advocate.
A balanced budget helps, gays/straights, all races, all ages, all religions.
This should be a theme that unites people, instead you are throwing out insults such as liar and thief.
Grow up.
this is just another form of the "Big Bird" argument...
"It's wasteful spending because we don't like it or understand it and what we don't understand has to go"
I swear when Sen. Paul speaks the IQ in the surrounding area drops by 15 points
2partyscam, you need to read the blog post more carefully, including this QUOTE from your pal, Mr. Paul. As I said in 1.4, he needs to give the cost/benefit explanation for denying this expenditure. He knows the project is not to study democracy and learn about democracy from fish. So why would he say something he knows not to be true? He's pandering to his base and you bought into it.
Rand Paul is dumber that a bag of hammers
Actually Rand Paul got it right according to Princeton University. Here is the study.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
======================================================
Contrary to the ideal of a completely engaged electorate, individuals who have the least interest in a specific outcome can actually be vital to achieving a democratic consensus. These individuals dilute the influence of powerful minority factions who would otherwise dominate everyone else, according to new research published in the journal Science.
A Princeton University-based research team reports Dec. 16 that this finding — based on group decision-making experiments on fish, as well as mathematical models and computer simulations — can ultimately provide insights into humans' political behavior.
The researchers report that in animal groups, uninformed individuals — as in those with no prior knowledge or strong feelings on a situation's outcome — tend to side with and embolden the numerical majority. Relating the results to human political activity, the study challenges the common notion that an outspoken minority can manipulate uncommitted voters.
======================================================
I guess MSNBC is trying to cultivate more "uninformed individuals" to perpetuate its view of "democracy".
....so instead of actually looking up the program Rand Paul was referencing you look up a program that wasn't funded by taxpayer dollars, that he wasn't referencing, that only marginally mentions fish and democracy and then assume that means you've now proven Rand Paul correct?
There's desperate...and then there's this.
The golden shiner democracy research is taxpayer funded and obviously the program Rand was referencing. But I see you are desperate to hold on to liberal lies.
From the article I posted that proved the research was about uninformed individuals in a democracy.
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
So yes liberal liars. The funding for this project to see how ignorant fish influenced "democracy" came from federal sources.
MY GOD, we are doomed. You people are so ARROGANT. Listen to what party2scam and libertyrulz are saying! It doesn't matter what the study is! or how it may or may not benefit us. What matters is as a country we are so broke we shouldn't be able to rub two pennies together. THE SPENDING HAS GOT TO STOP, the fact that 5.2 million dollars isn't a big deal to the public is whats going to bankrupt America. EVERY DOLLAR NEEDS TO WATCHED, 100 billions dollars of our government budget is unaccounted for, we dont even know where the money was spent! GROW UP!!!! WAKE UP!!!! One other thing, why would a professor in charge of this study (who probably got paid pretty good) say it was a waste of funding? OF COURSE HES GOING TO DEFEND HIS STUDY! the same way you would defend your job.
This is so unfair. You can't expect a physician to understand all that science-y sh1t.
Science is *hard*, man!
Economics is the science he understands and utilizes to balance the budget.
Randal Paul will get my vote in 2016.
Attaboy, Rand. Thanks to you, we're going to stop a research project to clean up oil spills and it'll cost each American about 15 cents. Goodbye, deficit!
2partyscam,
No, Mr. Paul has no training in economics and has never balanced a public budget.
In fact, he let his own private medical association lapse because he neglected to file paperwork.
Mr. Paul is practicing the art of demagoguery, not the dismal science of economics.
Seeking enlightenment.
Did you miss the story of Randal Paul returning 600K to the treasury rather than wasting it in his office as a Senator.
Plenty of people have training in Keynesian theories. They are the ones running up our debt.
I'll vote for an Austrian economist every day of the week.
Waste and debt are not good.
Wasting a mind isn't good either. You may rant and rave about Sen. Paul's qualities, but the fact remains, he's either a liar or incompetent. Either he did know the study wasn't about "goldfish and deocracy" and said so anyway or he didn't know the study wasn't about "goldfish and democracy", but was too lazy to check. As I said, either a liar or incompetent.
Your choice.
Except Rand didn't get it wrong. Read the damn Princeton website.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
Nobody in the world of politics gets more free passes than Rand Paul. From day one when he gave his acceptance speech at a posh and bigoted country club to his TRMS show crash and burn on Civil Rights, the man is a promoter of hate. Ted Cruz may not be more insane than Rand Paul, it's a toss up....
Ted Cruz: ...smart and Crazy .
Rand Paul : Bag "O" Hammers stupid and crazy.
and ditto on the free pass . 15 years ago anyone of comparable stupidity would have been laughed off the stage .
Now they are Republican Presidential candidates
I know that the intellectual bar is low in Kentucky, but even by the standards of that state, this guy is a disgrace. Read something before commenting on it? OMG. What a radical idea.
It's a close competition among Senate Republicans, but Rand Paul is the Senator who best demonstrates the wisdom of an old saying: "Sometimes it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."
Pelosi: "We'll have to pass the bill to know what is in it." I wish they would have paused for a few weeks to actually read that one before signing over BILLIONS OF DOLLARS and adding to the unfunded mandate list for individual states.
Oh, I'm sure they read the bill before signing it. You're just spouting right wing propaganda. I can imagine that a lot of the Republicans didn't bother to read it. After all, that 600k that Paul returned might have paid for some of those Senate aides who could read and summarize the bill, unlike Paul. And maybe you could explain how the ACA is an unfunded mandate?
It's this stupid blog that's getting the free pass! Read the Princeton website on the study. It's WORSE than what Rand said. The study showed that stupid people are "good" for democracy because they help push groups toward consensus. And most of the Maddow blog readers are proving the study right.
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
Again citing a study that Paul didn't cite. Not funded with tax payer dollars. If anyone lacks cognitive reasoning skills it isn't us.
Again liberal liar, the funding for the "stupid fish in a democracy" came from federal tax dollars. From the article I posted.
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
The point remains however. Certainly the fish program can find 2% in cost savings. Ordinary people do this on a regular basis.
Did you read the article, and did you not understand the program being cut wasn't about fish?
And please stop with the false equivalence of household budgets vs. government budgets, it's nonsense and makes you appear more foolish.....
I know reading is just as hard as science, but Paul was talking about cutting 100% of that program.
And if you cut 2% across the board you still end up with firing a lot of people. Or paying everyone 2% less - thus taking money out of the very part of the economic system that already has too little of it: the purses of normal people.
Shooter,
Apparently, the program in question is concerned with improving robotic devices that deal with deep sea oil spills and radioactive leaks. Since the private sector's way of dealing with these things are plans to protect the walrus population of the Gulf of Mexico, I would say the need for government financed research in this area is apparent.
Or, we could remove the need by banning deep sea drilling and ocean transport of radioactive materials. You can lead the charge on that one, especially telling the Navy to keep their nuclear subs and ships in shallow waters.
Gad. Has it escaped you folks that if everyone takes a cut of 2% The fish project remains? Yes everyone takes a 2% pay cut, no one gets fired, services continue, and nothing bad happens.
What is so hard about this?
Zora,
Did you read the article?
But Couzin charged Paul "misrepresented" the research that scientists have been doing for about four years. First of all, Couzin said, they studied golden shiner fish — not goldfish.
And shooter's point is valid. If everyone is against the across the board cuts that sequester brings, then there will have to be cuts made in specific areas. As the article stated, funding for this research comes from different sources including federal grants. Maybe cutting back a couple of percent on the grants for this program would be a good example of cuts that may not hurt as much as the sequester cuts would. Congress has got to start - like now - to compromise and determine where some cuts could be made with minimal effect to the economy.
In this case IF we did cut 2% of the $5.2 million (it that is the actual amount of fed money in the program), it would be $104,000. Very doable.
Has anyone ever explained to you what a 2% recession means to the jobs market? No? I bet!
Skip: Did the article mention cutting 2% from the goldfish study, or are you attempting another one of your epic strawmans... Yeah, Rand sounds reasonable if he asks for 2%, but you know he was not asking or suggesting that. Once again, our comment board conservatives try to change the subject instead of address the crazies...
Lebowsky,
It was not a strawman agrument. My point is/was that if sequestration is not acceptable - with the across the board cuts - then progams like this one (whatever the amount of funding is) should be considered over cuts that the President has pointed out (like first responders).
And once again the usual lemmings here try to muffle any comments that are not in total agreement with the pack. What do you propose cut-wise? Or are you only for revenues?
Skip and Shooter,
Mr. Paul was not talking about cutting programs by 2%, he was talking about cutting individual research grants (which he apparently cannot be bothered to read) by 100%.
Most unclassified federal research grants of this type are very competitive and heavily vetted by staff scientists in federal agencies--i.e. people who read the grants and understand all the long words. They are also easy to misrepresent if one wishes to do so. (For example, past landmark studies in protein structures could be described as studies of whale meat or cow digestive juices for sperm whale myoglobin and bovine pancreatic trypsin inhibitor studies, respectively.)
Having junior staffers in Mr. Paul's Senate office pick and choose which research program to fund and which to cut is definitely a big step backward.
Skip: The article is about Rand Paul and the truth, two divergent entities. Maybe Rand Paul is your "cut" hero, but that does not mean you can change the conversation about his obvious incompetance or dishonesty. Just look at this statement and the statements he made about "Friends Of Hamas", these are two easy Google searches that completely destroy Rand Pauls pathetic credibility. Either the guy makes a change and starts respecting the truth, or he does not. That has nothing to do with my opinion about "cuts"...
John, you're getting distracted by Benen's arm waving. The fish program is not on the chopping block, Paul is pointing out something he doesn't like. Benen is preying on your fear by hyping something other than a reduction of 2%.
Shooter,
"I would give the president the authority to go ahead and cut all $5 million in goldfish studies." -- Rand Paul.
(there are no 'goldfish studies')
And the feds should cut spending, but that would require understanding the programs under consideration and identifying real programs to cut. Such as the V-22 and the F-35, where we can save tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade.
John, the Feds as in "leadership" have no idea where to cut... the people running the Departments do. You make sure everyone agrees on what to do, then let your people figure out how to do it. This is basic management, not rocket science.
Once again, there is no reason why 2% across the board should result in ANY layoffs or ANY reduction in services. Don't be gullible.
What part of "the program should be cancelled" is beyond your comprehension?
You're 'way past "strawman" Blanks, it's more like bales of the stuff!
The only thing Rand got wrong was the name of the fish.
The link:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
The findings:
"We show that when the uninformed participate, the group can come to a majority decision even in the face of a powerful minority," Couzin said. "They prevent deadlock and fragmentation because the strength of an opinion no longer matters — it comes down to numbers. You can imagine this being a good or bad thing. Either way, a certain number of uninformed individuals keep that minority from dictating or complicating the behavior of the group."
The funding:
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
That people continue to insist that Rand got this wrong, when he obviously didn't, proves the study right. Ignorant people can move consensus into a particular direction.
Has Paul read the article in the Feb 25 issue of Time about the F-35? Since that article came out, the F-35 has been grounded because of engine cracks or something of the sort.
If they are going to cut defense, lets start with the wasteful, overbudget, out of date hardware.
@ $150 million each we might add... Makes a study @ 5 million look small no?
Engine cracks. And the helmet display is still not in real time with reality and lags about 3 seconds (enough time to kill oneself). As a friend of mine who is a well-known pundit in military affairs(a former member of Colonel John Boyd's "fighter mafia") said on this last news about the engines: we need to stop building fighters with no use in contemporary affairs, even if it does lead to increased unemployment among fraternity boys.
F-15 about $35 mil F16 about $25 million and remind me again who is the enemy we are fighting with F-35's ?
We are going to cut 5 A-10 squadrons, along with one each F-15 and F-16 squadrons, along with the C-27, just to keep the damn stupid F-35 program alive. As someone who was in Afghanistan, the cut planes are a helluva lot more useful than the F-35 would ever be, even if it was operational.
The F-35 is such a joke. It carries a smaller payload than the AV-8B (which currently has the smallest payload of all CAS jet aircraft), burns fuel at a higher ratio than it's counter part F series used for CAS, costs billions of dollars each plane in order to have the stealth capabilities that haven't proven reliable in test scenarios (and that are entirely pointless with electronic warfare counter parts like the Prowler/Growler series and the modified C-130's), and at maximum has proven (in test scenarios, anyways) to have an efficiency rating of only 85%. Oh and from the test runs they have done with this thing the stealth technology is especially pointless because the airplane can only stay in the air for a maximum of 3 hours making it even less viable for emergency support than the current AV-8B (which already has taken hits for only having a 30 minute in-air support capability because of it's low fuel capacity). The A-10 Worthog, on the other hand, has a 90% efficiency rating, costs only a couple million per unit (slightly more expensive than a helicopter), carries the highest payload of all CAS jet aircraft, and has an air hang time of over 6 hours. It's such a complete joke that they're getting rid of the A-10's for the F-35. Even if we accept the premise that the Pentagon gave- that we need the F-35's for future wars against nations like Iran and China- we have done simulation tests with the F-35 versus the aircraft it's supposed to be replacing and consistently the older aircraft have outperformed the F-35B. What is more our older aircraft can compete with all currently known Chinese fighters and yet under the simulations the F-35B loses horribly to almost all enemy aircraft. You have to go back almost 30 years in technology before the F-35 can compete in maneuverability (and I sincerely doubt we're going to be fighting any MIG's anytime soon). Oh and not to mention that the A-10 has been in service for how many years and thus has cheaper after-market parts available, already scores the same rating as the F-35 on stealth (despite not having all the fancy, pantsy "stealth" skin), and all NATO services are already inter-organized to be able to handle repairs/exchange parts making it much more viable for the supposed apocalyptic WWIII scenario that we're replacing it for.
OK non-topic-related rant over.
Really , With the type of wars we are fighting it would make more sense to open a Warthog production line than waste any more money on that defense contractors wet dream. While we're at it can we have a little discussion on the F22 ($150 million) that has a litany of problems on its own ranging from rain vulnerability to oxygen problems to the point no one wants to fly it. http://defensetech.org/2012/05/04/f-22-pilots-to-discuss-why-they-wont-fly-the-jet/
Cartoon, if we're talking budget and Rand Paul, then it's on topic. Sick, Boeing was awarded contracts in 2007 to build new wings and other upgrades for the Warthog, so in theory they will be good until 2040. I really really hope that they won't do what they did with the Navy A-6, and use them for artificial reefs in a couple years.
Paul and others using such arguments are deeply corrupt human beings. They have already decided their opposition before encountering any facts, and then twist, distort, ignore, and make up facts to justify their 'decision.'
They are bad citizens by any measure.
Sure. Balanced budgets are just pure evil.
Wake up.
You can balance a budget by increasing revenues, too. While we're talking about fiscal responsibility, let's get rid of the idiotic (and theoretically indefensible, from a tax and accounting standpoint) 15% tax rate for hedge fund managers. Let them pay the same tax on "inventory profits" that everybody else pays.
We should also institute the tax for high speed, high volume securities trading. It has nothing to do with making the economy more stable and successful. If anything, it has the opposite effect.
mp guy
Revenue increases through growth are VARIABLES steeped in assumption.
Debt and interest rates are CONSTANTS based upon REALITY.
Rand Paul deals in the constants rather than dreams about variables.
For that he will get my vote in 2016
2partyscam . . . Are you related to Rand Paul? You must be. You're two peas in a pod, given that neither of you seems very interested in acknowledging FACTS. Fortunately, your vote (or votes, if you intend to cast more than one) isn't likely to be enough to get him re-elected in 2016. He's a one term phenomenon.
Debt and interest rates are no more "constants" than is revenue. Debt levels change, based on economic performance. In a normal economy, interest rates--which are usually MUCH higher--rise and fall for a variety of reasons.
We should be taking advantage of historically low interest rates by doing long-term borrowing to finance public infrastructure construction, improvements, and repairs. That would boost the economy, lower unemployment, and increase tax revenues.
The Republicans want to keep the economy underperforming because they think (incorrectly, in my opinion) that, somehow, it will lead to electoral success for them. It hasn't worked that way so far, but hope springs eternal for the GOTP.
"Stupid is as stupid does" - Forrest Gump
No truer words have ever been spoken. Kinda makes you wonder about the in-breds in Kentucky....
Home of the Creation Museum! PTL!
Don't blame Kentucky. Rand Paul is from the all-time swamp of ignorance, stupidity, and criminal insanity: Texico.
Kentucky voted for this idiot and Kentucky should get the blame. Apparently that all time swamp extends well into Kentucky as well.
I've never seen so many people either so ignorant or so willing to lie. Taxpayer money went to fund a study to see how ignorant golden shiner fish influenced groupthink among the school of fish as a way to study democracy.
The link:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
The findings:
"We show that when the uninformed participate, the group can come to a majority decision even in the face of a powerful minority," Couzin said. "They prevent deadlock and fragmentation because the strength of an opinion no longer matters — it comes down to numbers. You can imagine this being a good or bad thing. Either way, a certain number of uninformed individuals keep that minority from dictating or complicating the behavior of the group."
The funding:
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
That people continue to insist that Rand got this wrong, when he obviously didn't, proves the study right. Ignorant people can move consensus into a particular direction.
Rand Paul, who proves that stupidity is indeed genetic and can be inherited, needs to learn the rule "remove head from ass and engage brain before commenting."
TC, a more polite way of saying the same thing was on my 9th grade math teacher's wall:
Be certain brain is engaged before putting mouth (or fingers) in gear.
I added "or fingers" since the internet did not yet exist back in 1964.
Ignorance>>>now that is something the tea party has a total control over.
as in they are very ignorant, and are unwilling to educate themselves.
The only thing Rand got wrong about the study is the name of the species.
The link:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
The findings:
"We show that when the uninformed participate, the group can come to a majority decision even in the face of a powerful minority," Couzin said. "They prevent deadlock and fragmentation because the strength of an opinion no longer matters — it comes down to numbers. You can imagine this being a good or bad thing. Either way, a certain number of uninformed individuals keep that minority from dictating or complicating the behavior of the group."
The funding:
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
That people continue to insist that Rand got this wrong, when he obviously didn't, proves the study right. Ignorant people can move consensus into a particular direction.
This is getting to be a sport in duping Fox ... The Onion, Rand Paul, Karl Rove... the list is endless.
Sport? Duping Fox is like shooting fish in a barrel. It is what happens when you hire pretty true believers instead of real journalists to run your infotainment fest.
The kind of behaviors that Dr. Couzin studies are, and will be, widely important in fields as diverse as transportation, to medicine, to defense.
He basically studies ememergent group behaviors in systems of indivuals. These behaviors have evolved in nature over millions of years, and will be the kind of conepts we must understand if we are to program/wire them into non-living systems.
Once self driving cars become prevalent, how will we design the grid to work most efficiently? How will nano medical "devices" coordinate? How will "flocks" of unmanned vehicles, air or ground, coordinate in warfare?
It is a little more complicated, and has much broader applications, than studying goldfish...lol.
Years ago a serious birder friend took me bird watching. We saw a giant flock of migrating geese (several hundred thousand birds.) Here and there were the bodies of dead geese being eaten by bald eagles. He told me the eagles didn't actually prey on the geese directly. Instead they would fly over the flock scaring it into the air. As hundreds of thousands of birds took off invariably some would collide and a few would die. The bald eagles ate well.
If we have thousands and thousands of self driving cars running along the highways relying on the same limited data set strategies geese and other flocking or schooling animals like fish employ, we will need to improve on nature or we will have to accept the occasional casualties just like the geese. You can't improve on nature until you know how nature works.
Veogo,
This sounds good and makes total sense, but since there is going to be cuts one way or the other I think that a small temporary cut or freeze should be on things like this first rather than on programs that affect entitlements (especially for the poor) or first responder jobs. When the economy is on more solid footing - with more tax revenues to go with it - these temporary cuts could be lifted. Or are you against cutting/freezing any spending?
Absoluely. I think they just need to do it smartly though. I wouldn't per se be against a temporary halt in research to things like this. However, that would have to be on a case by case basis.
For example, if it was worthwhile, meaning the research line was likely to continue at some point, but not something that is in immediate need, you would have to balance cost. Say you had already spent $2 million, and stopping would save the next $3 million. Does it make sense to stop if you are going to need to re-spend that $2million when the research continues? Would it be better to finish this one off and postpone new research?
Another example..maybe you pause/cut funding for athlete's foot research, but you don't kill off asthma research.
etc...
You get the gist.
The pause/re-spend money thing is mighty important until they get a long term plan in place. It would be silly to end up wasting money because there was a two, three, four week period where everything was up in the air.
Any attempt to guide policy based on individuals' perceived sociological views always turns into a human rights atrocity. The best way for society to function is to have a core rule of law, then to allow individuals to collaborate and interact as they see fit. Anything beyond that creates suboptimal results and can only be enforced by violence.
Research of biological patterns in groups may be interesting for scientific purposes, but it is useless in good government, because government can't and should not seek to mold the behavior of individuals -- rather, to protect their rights. Individuals should invest their own time deciding how to guide their lives.
The only thing Rand got wrong about the study is the name of the species.
The link:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
The findings:
"We show that when the uninformed participate, the group can come to a majority decision even in the face of a powerful minority," Couzin said. "They prevent deadlock and fragmentation because the strength of an opinion no longer matters — it comes down to numbers. You can imagine this being a good or bad thing. Either way, a certain number of uninformed individuals keep that minority from dictating or complicating the behavior of the group."
The funding:
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
Now, maybe you think such a study is worthwhile. That's fine. You should fund it. And I'm sure there are multiple aspects to the work. Rand honed in on one aspect. And he got his facts right.
OK--- enough already. After the last few weeks of "Friend of Hamas", GI Bill for Guantanamo Prisoners, and Paul's own "arms to Syria via Turkey" and now goldfish, I have come to a conclusion:
The GOP leaders need to fire all of their support staff and hire some competent researchers. You are making such fools of yourself by repeating these easily fact-checked statements. I can only conclude that your staff are totally incompetent and you don't trust them to help you. So, you are doing all of the "work" yourself. It is not working, unless your goal is to take down your party for good.
Sincerely,
Amused Liberal
If he can't read, he should deep six the reading glasses depicted in the photo.
Spectacles don't provide intellectual heft, moron.
Carl Levin you ain't.
Good job, Dr Paul. Keep fighting for a balanced budget.
No pigs like to be kicked away from the trough of taxpayer money.
They squeal loudly.
Military pigs, media pigs, administrative pigs, banking pigs, etc. They all squeal.
You make a good spokesperson for Rand Paul, you share his hatred for fellow Americans. It's much easier for you folks to pass blame than propose legislation...
You left out the "pigs" who grovel at the information slop trough that is FOX News, and the stupid pigs who vote for Republican douche bags.
Ultimately too, you forgot those shifty do-nothings on food-stamps and welfare! See also, Obamacare.. I'd get it if Rand Paul were your brother and then I'd feel sorry for you too!
No relation other than the shared understanding that 16.4 trillion dollars is a big problem that needs urgent remedy. Denial doesn't help debt.
I vote for fiscal conservatives. I don't watch FOX entertainment corporation and I am amazed that you even call it news.
I want to deal with corporate welfare before indigent welfare programs.
I don't need your type of condescending pity. I just need a balanced budget in my lifetime so my kids don't inherit a worthless dollar.
Since all the pigs squeal when their funding is cut, I guess I am just a happy taxpayer who wants the taxpayers to get a break once in a while.
Obamacare was not a break for taxpayers.
So, you're saying the "state", aka the US, after WWII was worthless because they passed the costs of that war onto their children/grandchildren? And the ratio of national debt to GDP was even higher then than it is now. Somehow that didn't seem to slow the economy down.
Of course, we had 90% marginal rates on all income over (approx) $250,000 then, which would be around $2 million or so today. Guess you're in favor of that, huh?
By the way, being condescended to by people on this board is the least of your worries. When reality finally hits...
scam: You buy houses with cash, or expect everyone to? Those "kids", they going to college on your cash? Yeah... you must need alot of "breaks" with coin like that. Or you are just another "balanced budget" hypocrite, a loud one. The entire system runs on "debt", no debt, no system. Ask Rand Paul if he took any student loans or has a mortgage...
Congratulations, Timmy! Heard you made a million dollar killing in wheat!
Well, Bobby... It wasn't wheat, it was copper. It wasn't one million, it was five. And it wasn't a killing; I took a loss.
From the days he produced his own eye doctor certification, Rand Paul has shown to any outsider looking in great displays of the ignorance massaged by the ignorant!
Rand Paul is not a healthy person to be involved in our democracy! -Kevo
The only thing Rand got wrong about the study is the name of the species.
The link:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
The findings:
"We show that when the uninformed participate, the group can come to a majority decision even in the face of a powerful minority," Couzin said. "They prevent deadlock and fragmentation because the strength of an opinion no longer matters — it comes down to numbers. You can imagine this being a good or bad thing. Either way, a certain number of uninformed individuals keep that minority from dictating or complicating the behavior of the group."
The funding:
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
That people continue to insist that Rand got this wrong, when he obviously didn't, proves the study right. Ignorant people can move consensus into a particular direction.
Did no one read the Politco piece? They are studying "collectivist" behavior in these fish. Clearly Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are worried about communist fish taking over our robots and staging a communist robot coup......
Too funny.
LOL. But sadly I don't think this Maddow blogger actually read the Politico piece he linked to. Otherwise he wouldn't have said something stupid like
"Apparently, the research has nothing to do with learning about "democracy" from goldfish -- they're not even goldfish -- but rather, is intended to "lead to advances in technology for robots that work on deep sea oil spills and radioactive leaks.""
Really, it's like playing the old elementary school game "telephone" where a message gets passed from one person to the next and changed a little bit. The Political article admits that at least part of the research was on stupid people in democracy. There was a paper released from that part of the study. And yes, like all research, there are multiple funding sources. That said, saying that tax dollars have gone to fund research into the kind of influence stupid fish have on "fish democracy" is 100% accurate. People on the left are tripping over themselves trying to pretend that it's not.
Most of the bad spills occur in foreign countries that have much poorer engineering and standards. So you can have your oil-eating fish experiment (which probably does not work.. of course the head of the project says it will). Either way, you aint fixing the problem with a government funded fish study.
Apparently you are a Rand Paul clone, your comment demonstrates that you did not read any information about what the project is about. Instead you chose to make some dumb ass statement about oil eating fish. It's people like you who vote for douche bags like Rand Paul.
The only thing Rand got wrong about the study is the name of the species.
The link:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
The findings:
"We show that when the uninformed participate, the group can come to a majority decision even in the face of a powerful minority," Couzin said. "They prevent deadlock and fragmentation because the strength of an opinion no longer matters — it comes down to numbers. You can imagine this being a good or bad thing. Either way, a certain number of uninformed individuals keep that minority from dictating or complicating the behavior of the group."
The funding:
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
That people continue to insist that Rand got this wrong, when he obviously didn't, proves the study right. Ignorant people can move consensus into a particular direction.
Cut government spending 40% and return to 1997 spending levels. Anyone disagree with 1997???
Old people with Medicare cards do not want to trade their coverage for your fantasy about the past. Don't beleive me? Ask them...
Pay your @!$%#ing taxes, it's 2013..
The party of Stupid strikes again! In the thesaurus a synonym for Republican is stupid.
So we're considering the beneficiary of the expenditure of millions of dollars on animal behavior to provide the final word on this? Ms. Maddow, would you be as willing to give this authority to Professor Couzin if a Republican was in the White House?
Sure. When all you have is an emotional argument you have to take advantage of the squeals from every pig pushed away from the trough as though they were the sounds of a wounded animal.
Emotion is all they have, that's why all the name-calling when you start asking about mathematics.
Just saw Boehner and Cantor on the TV machine and boy were they squealing.
Part of the requirement for running for public office should be a reading comprehension test, maybe something similar to the 12th grade proficiency tests or even the 6th grade proficiency tests, it is obvious that these morons in office comprehend nothing they read and spew their stupidity to the public. What a sad state of affairs we as a country have to endure before the next election.
"Perhaps Sen. Paul should read our papers before he comments on them ..."
If Paul and the other Tea Partiers only commented on subjects about which they are well-informed, they would all be completely mute ... a situation greatly to be desired.
$5.2 million for a study on how robots can help clean up spills is far outside the Constitutional authority of national security and is a massive waste. This is to lead to advances, not create a specific product. It's $5.2 million in random research about the behavior of fish. This could easily be done by a university much cheaper. This is a pork barrel project.
Too many people see "science" next to anything and assume it's worthwhile. You can't throw unlimited money at science and expect to get results. An endless flow of federal dollars does not an end result create. Subsidies get taken away when the discovery is made. It's a counterproductive system for the sciences. That's why NASA can't get back to the moon. It had to outsource so much of its development to private industry, it doesn't even know how its own technology worked.
Barry please cite the part of the Constitution this study violates. This country has long funded scientific research. To say otherwise shows a lack of knowledge of not only the Constitution but American history.
Rand got the important facts about the study right. The only thing he got wrong is the name of the species.
The link:
http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S32/37/23Q43/index.xml?section=topstories
The findings:
"We show that when the uninformed participate, the group can come to a majority decision even in the face of a powerful minority," Couzin said. "They prevent deadlock and fragmentation because the strength of an opinion no longer matters — it comes down to numbers. You can imagine this being a good or bad thing. Either way, a certain number of uninformed individuals keep that minority from dictating or complicating the behavior of the group."
The funding:
The research was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Searle Scholars Program, the U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research, the Royal Society and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency administered by the U.S. Department of Defense.
That people continue to insist that Rand got this wrong, when he obviously didn't, proves the study right. Ignorant people can move consensus into a particular direction.