Joe Finkle

If you try, you would write something like:

∃x∈E

where E is the set of all possible things, defined most broadly.

But if you are trying to use this as an axiomatic truth, a statement that cannot be refuted, then you have to allow the statement itself to be in the set E because otherwise you could deny the truth of the statement. Does that create a self-referential set problem akin to Russell's paradox or is that a legitimate use of self-reference that does not lead to inconsistent results?

So there's a plausible (if unlikely) path to a 6 way tie for the 2 AL wildcard slots, each team with 87 wins. I'm not sure of the tiebreaker rules, but I believe the head-to-head wins is the first tiebreaker. If so, the tiebreakers would, in this scenario, break down like this:

Yankees over Rays, Indians and Royals

Rays over Orioles, Indians and Rangers

Orioles over Yankees and Rangers

Indians over Orioles, Royals and Rangers

Royals over Rays, Orioles and Rangers and

Rangers over Yankees

If that happens, who plays who? How do you get two winners?

Also, if you have all the same scenario except the Rangers win the first slot (which is slightly less unlikely) and the other teams tie five ways for the second slot, then what happens?

Anybody know? Are the rules even robust enough to handle that?

Deals are made when there is a range of options the both parties agree is better than walking away from the table. The fiscal cliff is bad, but there are a lot of possibilities that I consider significantly worse. I imagine that Republicans probably feel the same. If the point where Democrats walk from the table and accept the cliff is to the left of where the Republicans walk and accept the cliff, we're going over the cliff. If the Democrats limit is to the right of the Republicans limit, then we SHOULD get a deal.

So can anyone think of a deal that Republicans and Democrats would agree on or are we going over the cliff?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/24/el-paso-c...

As of this article, not much was known. I haven't seen an update. It is entirely plausible that she is just an overzealous kid who didn't realize what she is doing (registering only Romney voters) is illegal (in which case I wouldn't prosecute her, I'm sure she's freaked out enough already), but if she was actually instructed to do this by an organization or (much worse) the County Clerk's office as she claims, that is a crime that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I'm just curious if there has been an investigation. It seems like it would be pretty easy for an FBI agent to figure out who she is, talk to her and her parents, and determine whether or not there is anything here worth pursuing. It is either completely outrageous or just a kid who didn't know any better. I want to know which.

I know you can have a Google Voice widget that allows 3rd parties to enter their phone number, then Google Voice calls them and then connects the call to you. That is similar to what I'm looking for, but I want to do something a little different that requires a custom widget that doesn't seem to be offered automatically through Google Voice.

What I want is to have users register their phone number on a website. The site would then add their number to my Google Voice account, which would send them a verification. They would enter the verification and then their number would be in my Google Voice account. Then I want to have them click on a button and have that button call their number before connecting them with a pre-programmed 3rd party number.

It doesn't have to be Google Voice, but Google Voice is free and it is easy to keep track of the calls there. (There are some downsides to Google Voice for this purpose, like the fact that it doesn't tell you which connecting phone was used to place the call, though that can also be addressed problematically. But if anyone has a suggestion for a different method, I'm open to that too.)

I haven't committed to a programming language yet. I know vb.net and c#.net, but I have friends who could help out in other languages if I give them the basic instructions on what I'm trying to do.

Any ideas?

I just received this message from another user:

Subject: Racism I have never seen it ever!!!

Message: Racism I have never seen it ever!!!

I have seen lots of programs to favor blacks like getting into college with lower scores , getting free government apartments , and watched as the blacks trashed them, because whitty owned them. blacks do most of the crime in the USA , ect ,ect

So what is going on here?

Here is where the problem started

When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation it created problems that are still with us today , in the mind of the blacks.

First of all

The Emancipation Proclamation is an executive order issued by United States President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, during the American Civil War using his war powers. It was NOT a law passed by Congress.

It was done as an act of War

In the mind of the blacks the Proclamation said they not longer had to work , but it did not say that at all , but they believed that is what is was for .......so blacks left their jobs on the southern farms and headed North

When asked well if you think you don't ever have to work , who will do the work of a man to support his family then?

The blacks answer was Uncle Lincoln Soldiers will do OUR work for US , so right there Lincoln created a welfare state in their minds ,,,,,and each new black generation teaches this Idea of not working to its black children....., but in the minds of the white population they precieved the Proclamation as freeing the poor slaves , who really were just working a normal farm job and getting full corporate benefits ,free housing

In reply, I wrote:

I don't believe I have ever seen a better example of irony than a message entitled "Racism I have never seen it ever!!!" followed by a characterization of slavery as "just working a normal farm job and getting full corporate benefits ,free housing" and arguing that the Emancipation Proclamation made it so that blacks think they don't have to do work forever more.

The word irony is often misused, but I've never seen anything fitting the definition of the word so perfectly. Wow.

So my question is, have you ever seen a better example of irony, defined as "the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning?"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/irony

In case you're curious, the message was in response to my answer to this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=At5FL...

from this user:

http://answers.yahoo.com/activity?show=SMRWom5naa

I have newborn twin girls. One has learned to breastfeed just fine and after losing too much weight initially, is on the right track now. The other has continued to lose weight. She's not dehydrated and has no other ill effects, but we're afraid that will change if this continues. We're still working on getting her to breastfeed well, but since it takes so long per attempt and we have a second baby feeding very frequently, it is very difficult to even offer the breast enough for her to take in enough calories. We started supplementing with a handfeeder for expressed milk and that seems to be effective. Plus, Mommy can sleep while baby suckles off Daddy's finger, which is nice.

So now we are looking at either a handfeeder or possibly a bottle to supplement or replace the breast for one baby using expressed milk. But we're trying to figure out if my wife can express enough milk for the job and to assess whether or not our daughter is eating enough food to start gaining weight. We have the Ameda Purely Yours, which should be plenty as a supplement, but we might need to rent a medical grade pump if we're not getting enough milk expressed as is.

We're hoping to avoid using formula, since it is not as good for the baby, but if she doesn't gain weight today, we'll have to just for the calories. To figure that out, it would be really helpful to know how many ounces (or milliliters) she should be eating in a day.

She was born at 6 pounds at birth and is now between 5 lb 2 oz and 5 lb 5 oz, depending on the scale and when she is weighed.

I think he was trying to argue that social mobility is a good thing, but he missed the point of his story.

He talked about his wife's father and his siblings. They could only afford to send 1 kid to college, so they chose 1 of them and that one went on to be successful. Doesn't that story illustrate how much better it would be if we had a system that could have educated the whole family so that they could each fairly compete with kids lucky enough to have rich parents who could send them to college? Shouldn't the cost of education be something that is largely shared through a better public pre-K through college education system that allows all kids to compete on equal footing so that the most qualified people can make this country better?

(This was just on CNN live at a rally, I'm sure the video will be available later today.)

For a first time parent of twins, the Wrapsody Bali Stretch Hybrid wrap seemed to be the best option for a baby carrier that won't cause hip dysplasia or risk suffocation (I consulted an expert and that's what she recommended). But it seems to be no more than just a piece of 2-way stretch fabric. Does anyone know if there are any special features of the Wrapsody that make it worth the money and if I want to make my own, does anyone have any tips, like how stretchy the material should be?

Thanks.

http://www.wrapsodybaby.com/shop/proddetail.php?pr...

Being a New Yorker and not having been through a hurricane before (except the tail end of dying tropical storms), I initially presumed that my apartment building would be designed to stand up to the winds. I'm sure it is structurally, but that doesn't necessarily mean I want to be inside it at the time. The more I read about high rise buildings and hurricanes the more I'm thinking it would be better to spend a scenic weekend in Pennsylvania (with friends, since I don't have a car myself).

So if you know about hurricanes, please let me know. I live in a high rise apartment building on probably the highest elevation ground in New York. The elevation is nearly 20 stories and my apartment is more than 20 stories up near the top of the building, for a total of about 40 stories above sea level. My windows face North and are tucked into an interior corner.

The building is about 30 years old and the bricks were just replaced a couple of years ago.

It's the biggest building in the area by far. There are only a couple of other high rises and they are several blocks away. Other buildings in the area are about 10 stories or less.

Hurricane Irene is projected to hit this area with wind speeds of about 85 mph, but from what I understand, for every additional 25 stories you go up, you go up a category in wind speed, so will it hit my windows like a category 3? Will the pressure or other damage cause them to blow out?

If these are not serious risks, then staying would be much easier, but even with an evacuation center 2 blocks away and WAY above storm surge areas, I don't want to take any unnecessary risks with my pregnant wife.

I have family in some other buildings in the city, so I'm curious if they would be any better off, either so my wife and I could stay there or, if necessary, so I can suggest they leave town as well. Would it be safer at the top of a 10 story building facing the highway at the same elevation? What about just a few stories up in a medium size building in central Manhattan where the elevation is low (but safely above the storm surge threat). The Manhattan building is pretty tall, about the same height as mine, but everything around it is much bigger. With that one, it would probably be better for the wind, since it's a low floor and shielded by other buildings, but debris would be a bigger concern since there are so many other buildings near by.

The earthquake a few days ago was kind of a joke, but this hurricane appears to be pretty serious. Thanks.

AJ. Burnett: 1.2 IP, 7ER

Aaron Laffey: 3PM, 2ER

Why on earth would AJ be considered for another start when he couldn't even outperform a kid acquired as "inventory" just so we would have more than one lefty arm in the pen?

Moody's and Standard & Poor's threatened to drop our credit rating in the event a default either happens or becomes imminent. As long as interest rates remain low, there is no danger of defaulting simply because of a high debt or deficit. Greece is in that kind of danger because they have had increasingly difficult times borrowing money, which in turn drove up their interest rates to about 30%. Our interest rates are close to zero, historic lows. As important a long-term problem as the debt and deficit are, it simply isn't a short-term threat to our fiscal solvency. The only tangible danger of seeing a dramatic rise in interest rates is if we default or get so close to it that the credit rating agencies think we will default.

It's like the difference between a flood and a tsunami. For a flood you build a levy, open flood plains, secure your home, and have an orderly evacuation. For a tsunami, you seek higher ground immediately, regardless of what you have to leave behind. If you run from a flood, you'll lose everything you own when you could protect it. If you don't run from a tsunami, you will die. It seems by insisting on a grand bargain we are treating a flood like it's a tsunami and a tsunami like it's a flood, trying to prepare for a possible default by slashing spending as fast and recklessly as possible.

I've seen Obama make this statement in the last few days, since Moody's threatened to cut our credit rating if we get too close to default. It seems like he is saying that to justify his goal of a grand bargain, arguing against the McConnell/Reid plan (which is a plan that I don't like at all, but it's probably the best deal we're going to get at this point, now that Obama has botched the negotiations so badly, though granted even that plan may not be able to get through right now). More recently, I've started to see reporters, including on NPR where they should know better, making this same statement.

Has anyone seen any credible economists explaining this short-term threat (or can anyone explain it themselves)? Am I missing something here? Or are they conflating the short-term debt ceiling crisis with the long-term debt crisis unnecessarily?

(NOTE: I understand that the two are related, in case that's not clear, but one is an immediate problem that we have to deal with now or risk the enormous consequences of default and the other is longer-term problem that periodically leads to the threat of these short-term problems, along with other issues.)

I was listening to NPR. They didn't seem to notice why this comment was funny, but I did, and I thought I would share for your comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKe0tFg9nRQ

I know it isn't what she meant to say and it isn't actually a big deal (though it's interesting that there are so many gaffs like this), but it is pretty funny regardless and I just wanted to share.

It is a big deal whether or not the political attack (I'm thinking it was from Pawlenty's campaign, since her most prominent disgruntled former staffer works for him now) is true that claims her migraines are debilitating and hints that the medication she is taking for them is pretty serious stuff. But that's separate from the humor of this quote.

I don't watch Fox News and I'm just curious to hear from those who do about what they have been saying about it and how much they have discussed it. Thanks.

We've seen Mitre, he's OK, but Nova, while still developing, is better and has done well in long relief before. Why would the Yankees pick up Mitre knowing it meant they would have to send Nova down to give him the roster spot.

"By virtue of the power to borrow money 'on the credit of the United States,' Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as assurance of payment as stipulated -- as the highest assurance the Government can give -- its plighted faith. To say that Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise, a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor."

Chief Justice Hughes, Perry v. U.S., 294 U. S. 330 (1935)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/294/330/case.html

In that case, the Court found that the government had not, in fact, defaulted. Indeed our government has never defaulted and so the issue was never formally decided. The decision I cited is the only one I know in which it was even discussed. But the language of the Constitution is clear:

US Cont. Amend. XIV, Sec. 4:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law..., shall not be questioned....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt14i_use... (annotated Constitution)

As Chief Executive Officer, Obama is obligated to pay all debts incurred through spending authorized by Congress. Congress can prevent new spending, but they inherently lack the authority to withhold payment for outstanding debts. Obama not only may borrow if necessary to pay off outstanding US debts, he is obligated to do so by the Constitution of the United States. If he fails to do so, regardless of what Congress does, our creditors will sue the US government and the Supreme Court will order Obama to pay, whether he has to borrow without congressional authorization, print new money, collect outstanding debts owed to the US, or any other action within the authority of the Executive branch of government.

Every election winner since Medicare passed has supported it in their campaigns (their true opinions and records in office vary, but I'm just talking about the campaigns).

Nixon supported Medicare:

http://www.criticalpast.com/video/65675057117_Rich...

Ford supported Medicare (though he wasn't elected):

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=62...

Carter and Reagan argued over who supported Medicare more:

http://www.larrydewitt.net/Essays/Reagan.htm

Bush Sr. supported Medicare in 1988 (In 1989 he signed the bill repealing the Medicare expansion he had supported the previous year. In 1992, he lost reelection.)

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/07/09/us/bush-denies-a...

Bill Clinton supported Medicare

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoBFL6iwid4

George W. Bush supported Medicare in 2000 and 2004 (he proposed a Paul Ryan type plan in 2005 and the Democrats took the House in 2006.)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=640582n

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/02/game...

And of course Obama supported Medicare in 2008 (Republicans ran with great success in 2010 largely on claiming Obama had cut Medicare.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Xi45Mf-P70

Every prospective candidate in the GOP field except for Mit Romney has thrown their support toward Ryan's plan to end Medicare. Have any major party candidates taken a position like that during a campaign before? Obviously if they did, they lost, but I'm curious if anyone ever even tried it in a Presidential race.

Without having thought through the idea thoroughly, I'm curious for feedback:

The US is the most powerful consumer nation on the planet with 300 million people and an enormous trade deficit. No large corporation would forgo our market because if they did they would be out-competed by companies that do business here. Given that, what if we instituted a policy that said every corporation that does business in the United States must pay the US corporate tax rate? Setting that rate is a different debate, I'm just talking about closing a loophole, not the appropriate tax rate. Taxes paid in foreign countries could be deducted so corporations aren't paying double tax, it just means they pay at minimum the US tax rate, even if some of that rate is paid to other countries in which they do business.

What this prevents is corporations putting all their earnings on the books of tax shelter subsidiaries in Bermuda and other places like that. GE not only paid zero taxes, they actually got a tax subsidy last year in spite of making 15 billion. They are not alone, these types of numbers are common among large corporations. If we end the policy of keeping money off-shore in tax shelters, we would recover many billions in corporate taxes.

I think this policy would achieve that without the negative effects that are commonly feared, which are that companies will shift manufacturing (and jobs) off-shore. Here, as long as companies want to sell in US markets (and they do), it doesn't matter where they are located, they must pay US tax rates.

We may want to exempt small businesses so they can enter the US market more easily or we may not so that the ones who are here can be protected from foreign small business competitors operating in tax shelter nations. I could see going either ways on that.

What do you think would be the response? What problems do you foresee? What solutions might there be for such problems to still achieve the goal?

Thanks.

Just throwing out an idea, not sure if it's good or not and curious for feedback.

The problem is that money cannot be regulated as speech, even when that money is spent by corporations because, after Citizen's United, corporations have the same free speech rights as people. I won't get into why I disagree with this ruling, only make a suggesting that I believe fits within the current state of the law.

Corporations can still be regulated by the Federal (and State) government, but it is their organizational and business practices that can be regulated, rather than their speech. OK, so let's make a regulation that says that any business organization wishing to spend money in a manner that a reasonable person informed of all factors would believe was intended to influence a politician or an election, that money must come directly from individuals who own that business and affirmatively opt in to such spending. If the business organization so desires, they may require that such money be spent, but allow it's owners spend their share of the money on an opposing political organization, a non-political charity, or on a public financing pool for elections (the same pot of money that your extra tax dollars go if you check the appropriate form on your tax return). Only money controlled by those with the legal right to influence a US election (a rule that varies, but is typically more broad than those with voting rights, but does not include foreign nationals) may be used to influence an election or a politician in this manner and any other money spent must go to either a charity or to the general campaign fund. Money owned by a government organization can only go toward the general campaign fund.

Obviously there would be a lot of details, but the main idea is that a corporation, union, partnership any other entity is ultimately made up of people. My quibble with the Supreme Court in Citizens United is over the fact that corporations, unlike partnerships and unions, are separate legal entities under the law whose motivations are required, by law, to be purely profit not good will, and so the personhood of the shareholders should not transfer to the corporation. But the Supreme Court disagrees, so for the purposes of this discussion, a corporation is made up of it's shareholders, a partnership is made up of it's partners, a union is made up of it's members, etc.

If any business organization wishes to spend money politically, it would send out a notice to it's members (as they do for various other purposes, like board member voting). Let's say the New York Yankees wants to spend money on an ad in support of a referendum in New York City to build another new stadium. They decide how much they will seek to spend. Then, they send out notices to their shareholders. Let's say the Steinbrenner's own 60% of the team. They vote yes and so 60% of the money the Yankees wish to spend can be spent. Let's say another 20% is owned by a partnership. That partnership in turn notifies it's members. Let's say one of them, owning half the partnership, 10% of the Yankees, is the New York State Pension fund (a very large private equity fund). That 10% goes to the general campaign fund. Perhaps the other half is owned by an institutional investor like Chase who invests money from their investment clients. Chase would then send a notice to their individual clients who would decide how their portion of the money would be spent. And so on for the remaining money.

Similarly, for a union, a union would have to ask it's members whether or not they want to donate to one particular cause or not.

Basically, the idea is that only people can decide how to spend their money on campaigns. Business organizations are prohibited as business organizations to make that decision for those who control the money. The decision must go back to the individuals then the money can only be spent when individuals with the legal right to spend it can be found and affirm to do it.

One effect would be to slow down the process. First of all, the business organization seeking to spend the money could choose the manner of notification to speed it up if they wish. However, the fact that the process is slower and more transparent is overall a good thing. It allows individuals to have some warning and some say in how their money is spent.

What do you think? Do you think that would be Constitutional under the current jurisprudence? Why or why not? Do you think it is a good policy? Why or why not? What would you do to improve it?

There are many self-funded or partially self-funded government entities. Those include the post office, many pension funds, the Federal Reserve, and many others. Many of the bailouts were started with a cash of government money but then used self-funding methods to return most of it, like the auto bailout or the bank bailout.

Couldn't the government start and then build similar programs where the goal is not just to use fundraising methods to reduce costs of expensive programs (like pensions) but to actually earn revenue that could offset debts and deficits?

The government already provides grants and direct spending, getting little or nothing back, on infrastructure, which improves the whole economy over time. Why not use some of that money on loans instead of grants. Essentially, the government would be improving the economy in the exact same way that private sector actors do. The government would focus mainly on areas of high risk that are underfunded by private investment but important to the future, such as green energy, transportation, space exploration, communications technology and standardization, etc.

As some examples, the US government could offer loans to struggling rail companies seeking to build new high speed lines. In 10 years time, they could pay those loans off several times over while providing cleaner, safer, and more convenient transportation between the most heavily trafficked routes, freeing up air travel for where it is used best, for small city travel.

Another use would be for foreign and international relations policy. Micro-lending programs have been among the most impactful charities, dollar for dollar, of any on the planet. They usually make money while improving lives and spreading good will to the people. The US should get in on that, shifting some of our foreign aid money into those types of programs where we can generate good will toward the US, build up peaceful middle class societies that can act as a check to make sure foreign governments are democratic, and achieve many of the same goals that the foreign aid money we spend now already achieves. And it could be self-funded or nearly so. On top of micro-lending the US could invest in foreign companies with built-in conditions that other entities won't impose, such as fair labor conditions and environmental protections that will help level the playing field with the obligations of American companies so we can compete fairly. We can also, to the extent possible with our international treaty obligations, favor US companies in that investment, boosting the American economy while other investors seek out countries where they can prey on cheap labor.

What do you think? Am I missing something in my analysis? It would take a while to build up a program like this, as you wouldn't want to spend too much getting it started, mostly shifting money from other forms of government spending, but it would provide a lot of benefit in the end and once it's running, it would offset rather than increase the tax burden.