Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, July 02, 2012

OT-P: July: Obamacare Decision as Baseball: the Runner is Safe, so Now What?

My favorite play in baseball is the second base steal. In the play, the base runner watches the pitch, and at just the right moment, he sprints toward second. The catcher snatches the pitch, springs up and rockets the ball to the second baseman who snags it and tries to tag the runner as he slides into the base. As the dust clears, all eyes are on the second base umpire who, in a split second, calls the runner safe or out. When the play is over, the players dust themselves off, and the game goes on.

Some on the field may disagree with the umpire’s call.  However, the umpire’s decision is final, and arguing can get you ejected. To stay in the game, great teams simply adjust their strategy based on the umpire’s call.

 

Morty Causa Posted: July 02, 2012 at 02:26 PM | 4025 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics, special topics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 40 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 > 
   3901. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:17 AM (#4196869)
You will find if you compromise and come up with suggestions, liberals will gladly go along.


You know this isn't going to happen, right? Cap n' Trade was the conservative alternative. CnT was the market friendly alternative to more top down regulatory options. CnT was the "individual mandate" of carbon pricing. And like the individual mandate, it was merely a stand-in for "the conservative option" to get the liberals to move their windows right, at which point the "conservatives" pulled the football away and started calling their old policy proposals "socialism."

This playbook is getting old, Charlie Brown.
   3902. formerly dp Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:19 AM (#4196872)
What would that be. Certainly not fusion. Fusion produces just as much radioactive waste as fission.


If that ####### alcoholic ####### whoremongerer Tony ####### Stark hadn't destroyed the arc reactor, this whole problem would have been solved by now.
   3903. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4196873)
It's one of the things I never quite get about the climate change debate. At a certain point debating whether humans are the cause of climate change or not misses the point. If the climate is moving in a way that severely damages human life, who cares whether it's our fault or something beyond our control...let's do all we can to work against it.


I think the response that Mobilizations have traditionally had to climate changes is to move. Of course if you are moving to someplace that already has people...

What would that be. Certainly not fusion. Fusion produces just as much radioactive waste as fission.

umm, no. Fusion and fission produce similar quantities of electromagnetic radiation, they do not produce remotely similar quantities of radioactive particles, nor does fusion produce some of the nasty long half-lifed heavy isotopes that fission does- and it's that later category that the real nuclear waste issue lies.
   3904. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:22 AM (#4196876)
Certainly not fusion. Fusion produces just as much radioactive waste as fission.


This is not true. Really really not true. I would lecture on fusion energy (wow are there a bunch of myths out there about it), but I am a bit busy at the moment. I will try to get back to it later though.

You know this isn't going to happen, right? Cap n' Trade was the conservative alternative.


This is true. Although I actually think it is in fact a better solution than top down regulation*. The conservative option really is better here. Is it perfect? No. Is it the end of the discussion and all we need to do? No. But it is a good start.

* Note: This is not the case with the mandate, which is clearly inferior to going to single payer, but oh well.
   3905. zonk Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:23 AM (#4196878)

To be fair, the press were throwing out some, ummm, non-neutral questions, such as:

, "Governor Romney, are you concerned about some of the mishaps of your trip."
"Governor Romney, do you have a statement for the Palestinians?"
"What about your gaffes?"


See, this is where I disagree with the neutering of the press.

It's hard for me to see how these are 'unfair' questions -- Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and plenty of other GOP friendlies and operatives have gone on the record and off calling them precisely that.

They were gaffes, plain and simple -- I fail to see what's so wrong about calling them such.
   3906. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:25 AM (#4196881)
If that ####### alcoholic ####### whoremongerer Tony ####### Stark hadn't destroyed the arc reactor, this whole problem would have been solved by now.


Hey now, why no blame for Bruce Wayne? He refused to allow Fusion even though he had a working prototype, all because it might be used for evil. Unlike the unalloyed good present in our current energy infrastructure. God that plot point in TDKR was beyond dumb.
   3907. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4196890)
It's hard for me to see how these are 'unfair' questions -- Karl Rove, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and plenty of other GOP friendlies and operatives have gone on the record and off calling them precisely that.


It's not that they are "unfair" questions, it's that they were deliberately confrontational and thrown out not so much to get a nuanced reasoned response, but to provoke an undiplomatic knee-jerk reaction (which in this case they did).

OTOH politicians and their staff deal with this stuff all the time, hell Reagan turned it into a game, he'd give a short speech take no questions, herd the press outside so they could watch him get on a helicopter from behind a rope, and they'd start yelling questions, he'd smile and wave and pretend not to hear him.

The fumbling displayed by Romney's campaign staff is starting to puzzle me.

Traditionally Republicans have professional well run campaigns, that's begun to wane in recent years with the influx of tea party types - but your "establishment" republican still run smooth professional well-disciplined campaigns- and Romney is almost as "establishment" as they come.

He's been a Governor, and he's run for President twice. His last primary campaign was as mistake free as these things can be, he basically stood above the fray watching the "not-Romneys" either self-destruct or fall victim to Romneys' coordinated SuperPac attacks- I mean he had that "etch a sketch" moment, but every campaign stumbles now and then, on the whole he had a remarkably disciplined and on- target campaign- and he had to because quite frankly he's a terrible candidate, aloof and unlikeable.

Now, his gaffes and his staffs gaffes seem to be spiraling, if I had to pt a finger on it, I'd say that some of his people are simply cracking/choking, they have been essentially running non-stop for years now, the have finally reached the finals and...
some of his people probably badly need a vacation.
   3908. zonk Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:41 AM (#4196897)

It's not that they are "unfair" questions, it's that they were deliberately confrontational and thrown out not so much to get a nuanced reasoned response, but to provoke an undiplomatic knee-jerk reaction (which in this case they did).


Well, a part of that is that press availability has been near nil on this trip -- which is unusual (Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc -- generally held pressers in previous sorts of trips).

But beyond that, these really aren't any more confrontational than what you'd hear at WH press briefing.
   3909. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4196904)
Now, his gaffes and his staffs gaffes seem to be spiraling, if I had to pt a finger on it, I'd say that some of his people are simply cracking/choking, they have been essentially running non-stop for years now, the have finally reached the finals and...
some of his people probably badly need a vacation.


It is also very different from Primary to general Election and very different Gov to President. Maybe his staff are filled with AAAA level talent or something. That is what impressed me regarding the Obama campaign last election, they were very smooth the whole darn election, and against a bit harder competetion than Romney faced prior to post primary this year.

Still I think the questions, while a bit hostile, were an opportunity to frankly address the trip and move on. Pissing the press off is not a great move generally speaking. That is the reall issue with this trip. Not the geenral public, because John Q independent really doesn't pay attention to elections this soon or foreign trips, but the media and insiders are paying attention and if "Romney campaign can't shoot straight" becomes embedded with them then everything, no matter how minor, gets filtered through that the rest of the campaign.

Obama is a bit technocratic and aloof and so the press isn't super fond of him (now that it is clear he cannot walk on water), but if they start to think Romney is a joke then it will be tough skating. It won't truly be liberal bias, but it will be legitimate bias and one that is real tough to fight once it takes hold.

I remain convinced the Romney campaign will start to do better, but they keep proving me wrong. Post Olympics it starts to become more urgent though.
   3910. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4196907)
This is not true. Really really not true. I would lecture on fusion energy (wow are there a bunch of myths out there about it), but I am a bit busy at the moment. I will try to get back to it later though.


What about the free neutrons interacting with the reaction chamber materials and making them radioactive?
   3911. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4196910)
I will, you are dishonest. You have been dishonest repeatedly in this post. When called on your dishonesty you accuse others of lying. You are a class A troll. It'd be more useful discussing things with RossCW.


I'm still waiting for you to post the evidence that I said climate change was a "liberal conspiracy." Until that point, you're just a liar.
   3912. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:57 AM (#4196915)
What about the free neutrons interacting with the reaction chamber materials and making them radioactive?


I didn't say zero radiation, because there is some created and there is also the issue of erosion in the reactor, but the amount of radiation is much much less, and the other dangers are also much less. Fusion is much better than Fission, but it is also much harder to accomplish.

Sadly we keep cutting funding for it, and then wondering why so little progress is being made. At home I have some great links, but they are not available where I am.

Of course fusion is not the only answer, solar, tidal, fission, wind and so on also need to be utilized. Any single replacement for Coal & Oil are bound to be inadequate in the short term, but technology marches on and I think there is a strong role for governments to spend the money (directly and through various incentives and regulations) on the basic research, so that free enterprise can then utilize the basics to build the technology solutions of the future.
   3913. tshipman Posted: July 31, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4196918)
re: Romney questions:

You're going to get antagonistic questions when reporters are on a 10 day junket and have only been allowed to ask 3 questions so far. That pisses people off.

Romney has had an extremely low amount of press availability in general this season. You have to wonder if O is going to be able to take advantage of it. O is at his best speaking to large crowds, not doing 1-1's.

Edit: Clinton would try to do an interview a day. He'd be on public access by October.
   3914. formerly dp Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:02 AM (#4196921)
Hey now, why no blame for Bruce Wayne? He refused to allow Fusion even though he had a working prototype, all because it might be used for evil. Unlike the unalloyed good present in our current energy infrastructure. God that plot point in TDKR was beyond dumb.


I think we agree that aristocratic white genius vigilante CEOs bear a lot of the blame for our current energy problems.
   3915. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4196922)
I'm still waiting for you to post the evidence that I said climate change was a "liberal conspiracy." Until that point, you're just a liar.


Has any one else noticed Ray calls people liars really often? It is his go to. Find something, anything, and first stop the "liar liar" card comes out. The seems to be a strong assumption of poor faith by him regarding everyone he is arguing with that I find a bit distastfull.

Some posters argue merits, Ray jumps to the personal attacks, though I admit often in response to other's personal attacks on him. It does avoid an actual discusion on the merits of arguments though. Usually Ray is technically correct and in this instance I bet he never used the exact formulation "liberal conspiracy" but that is such a sideshow regarding thw whole thread I find it really boring. But to each their own.
   3916. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4196929)
Usually Ray is technically correct and in this instance I bet he never used the exact formulation "liberal conspiracy" but that is such a sideshow


precisely

Ray says all the same things that people who claim that AGM is a "liberal conspiracy" say- and then Ray will add (or lead of with), "I'm not saying that global warming is a hoax"

It's a game/tactic of his, and for some reason it was really starting to get me infuriated, and so I started acting like he does, so I guess that means he wins or something.
   3917. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4196933)
Well, a part of that is that press availability has been near nil on this trip -- which is unusual (Obama, Clinton, McCain, etc -- generally held pressers in previous sorts of trips).


In London, Romney alienated the US press corps by taking questions from British reporters but refusing to take questions from the US pool reporters (as he never takes questions at home.) I think a lot of the "antagonism" in the US press pool this week is a direct result of spending the last week hanging out with the Brits last week and seeing how real journalists do there jobs.
   3918. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4196935)
Clinton would try to do an interview a day. He'd be on public access by October.


QFT, and funny to boot.
   3919. Rants Mulliniks Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4196936)
The tune seems to have changed since last week regarding the media's relationship with politicians...... Maybe the press is realizing that being subservient to a PUBLIC SERVANT does not help anyone.
   3920. Lassus Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4196937)
Usually Ray is technically correct and in this instance I bet he never used the exact formulation "liberal conspiracy" but..."

Ray wouldn't use the words "liberal conspiracy" but he calls global warming/climate change proponents a cult populated by liberals, calls the science worthless and driven by liberal money, says the liberals are pushing the issue it due to worldview instead of actual concern, says that liberals see a problem but not the money involved to fix it just like the liberals always do, and then he calls the liberals hypocrites if any of them are making money on products and initiatives and businesses connected to the issue.

His kerfuffle about the term "liberal conspiracy" is a complete dodge, because that's what precisely what he's describing.
   3921. Shredder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4196942)
Romney has had an extremely low amount of press availability in general this season. You have to wonder if O is going to be able to take advantage of it. O is at his best speaking to large crowds, not doing 1-1's.
I can't remember where I read it, but I saw something that said the Romney campaign was making a strategic decision to spend as little time as possible with the traditional media, and planned to rely a lot more on Druge and other right wing "alternative" news site (i.e., blogs like RedState, Fox News, etc.). The base will love it, because not only do they get their news almost exclusively from those sources, they also like to see the traditional media kicked in the nuts. In one respect, Romney has to do this because he has base problems to begin with, and he needs to shore up that flank. They're essentially betting that base motivation + bad economy will be enough, and that he won't need to actually campaign to win independents in the traditional sense.

   3922. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4196948)
I think a lot of the "antagonism" in the US press pool this week is a direct result of spending the last week hanging out with the Brits last week and seeing how real journalists do there jobs.


British "journalists" equal "real journalists" as compared to US journalists????


have you ever read any British papers/magazines?

Ok they have some reasonable quality ones, but seriously, on the whole they are even deeper in the dumpster than here.
   3923. zonk Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4196949)
I think Romney's 2008 run was largely under the "my turn" guise -- I think he understood the way the GOP does these things, that McCain was likely to get his 'turn' in 2008, and Romney basically ran 2008 to set the groundwork for 2012. I don't think he really expected to be the nominee last time out. As such, there's no real pressure to run an all-out campaign - you take your shot, see if maybe things change, but most importantly - just make sure you get your ticket punched for the next "my turn".

For a cautious businessman, that's simply the smart move.

Multiple GOP friendlies have on and off record bashed his campaign apparatus -- he's basically using his trusted guys from back from his MA days. They've occasionally brought in outside help -- the Liberty U debate fellow, for example -- but then pretty unceremoniously dumped said help when the process stories started to bubble up around that.

As the TPM article quotes a GOP operative saying -- Romney can't win this election, but Obama can lose it. I think that's sort of dawning on Team Romney and its bound to cause some heartburn.

At the end of the day, they've just got a candidate that isn't going to inspire anyone. They know it. That means they need to run a perfect campaign and then either force the other guy into errors or let the environment dictate the election. In such a scenario, mistakes are going to get magnified.

In effect, this is why the 'gaffes' matter - even if the substance of them do not.... Give it time -- won't be long before Ann and Mitt share an awkward kiss on stage and the press is abuzz with talk of 'earthy tones'.
   3924. Shredder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4196960)
Good news for Republicans! We have a case of actual voter fraud! Except, in this case the fraudster was a candidate for Republican county supervisor who kept requesting, filling out, and submitting absentee ballots for a life-companion who had died five years prior. By my count, that makes two actual cases of voter fraud* in the last year or so, both by Republican politicians, neither of which would have been prevented by a voter ID requirement.

*slight digression - this guy in Indiana is actually the brother in law of one of my best friends. He's pretty much exactly as slimy as he appears.
   3925. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4196966)
Some posters argue merits, Ray jumps to the personal attacks, though I admit often in response to other's personal attacks on him.


I don't ever use personal attacks, or call people names, or anything like that. I don't think calling someone a liar is a personal attack, but rather a statement of what the person did. When Johnny says "Ray said X" and Ray never said or even implied X, Johnny is lying. If it's a personal attack to then point out that he was lying, so be it.

It does avoid an actual discusion on the merits of arguments though. Usually Ray is technically correct and in this instance I bet he never used the exact formulation "liberal conspiracy"


Not only didn't I say it, but it is not the logical conclusion of any of my comments. A conspiracy is when people get together and agree to do X. I never said, suggested, or implied that groups of liberals got together and met secretly and decided to pimp climate change as a means to an end. It was simply their worldview that got them to the point where they insist that something (instead of nothing) Must Be Done. There was no conspiracy, and Johnny is a liar to claim that that is what I said or that it is the end result of my comments.

This is not splitting hairs, or bringing up a "technical" distinction. A conspiracy has nothing whatsoever to do with anything I said. The concept of a conspiracy is completely different from anything I said. It makes as much sense as saying that MLB "conspired" to keep outfielders who hit .150 out of the game. Which is to say no sense at all.

   3926. zonk Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4196973)
Good news for Republicans! We have a case of actual voter fraud! Except, in this case the fraudster was a candidate for Republican county supervisor who kept requesting, filling out, and submitting absentee ballots for a life-companion who had died five years prior. By my count, that makes two actual cases of voter fraud* in the last year or so, both by Republican politicians, neither of which would have been prevented by a voter ID requirement.

*slight digression - this guy in Indiana is actually the brother in law of one of my best friends. He's pretty much exactly as slimy as he appears.


Now, now -- "voter fraud" can only be perpetrated by poor people of different skin pigmentation in urban settings. Clearly, these are both cases of 'misallocation of ballot resources'.
   3927. Shredder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4196976)
It was simply their worldview that got them to the point where they insist that something (instead of nothing) Must Be Done.
Yeah, guys. Client scientists aren't liberal conspirators. They're just all so personally and individually corrupt that they don't even need to get together and conspire with one another to reach their desired outcome! It's just in their blood.
   3928. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:35 AM (#4196977)
They're essentially betting that base motivation + bad economy will be enough, and that he won't need to actually campaign to win independents in the traditional sense.



Otoh, even a top ranked radio show like Rush, and a top ranked cable news show (like anything on Fox), reaches a smaller audience than the traditional "msm."

For instance, Fox News may crush MSNBC and CNN (hell sometimes Fox beats MSNBC, CNN, HLN and CNBC combined)

but many days John Stewart's Daily Show clobbers Fox, sometimes Colbert does too

each of the 3 traditional broadcast network news shows has 2 to 3 times as many viewers as Fox (after literally decades of decline too).


   3929. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:36 AM (#4196982)
It's a game/tactic of his, and for some reason it was really starting to get me infuriated, and so I started acting like he does, so I guess that means he wins or something.


No, it just means that Dan's observation that you are one of the few Noble And Good Political Posters was a fantasy.
   3930. zonk Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4196986)
Otoh, even a top ranked radio show like Rush, and a top ranked cable news show (like anything on Fox), reaches a smaller audience than the traditional "msm."

For instance, Fox News may crush MSNBC and CNN (hell sometimes Fox beats MSNBC, CNN, HLN and CNBC combined)

but many days John Stewart's Daily Show clobbers Fox, sometimes Colbert does too

each of the 3 traditional broadcast network news shows has 2 to 3 times as many viewers as Fox (after literally decades of decline too).


Of course - the upside is that virtually everyone watching Fox or listening to Rush votes, while I suspect the number is lower for the msm.

Mark Penn wasn't entirely wrong about micro-targeting, he's just a bit of doofus on the implementation side and one of those types that gets blinded by his theoretical brilliance, forgetting that success also requires a modicum of practical application.
   3931. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4196988)
seeing how real journalists do there jobs.


By bribing the police and hacking people's phones?
   3932. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4196992)
Ray wouldn't use the words "liberal conspiracy" but he calls global warming/climate change proponents a cult populated by liberals, calls the science worthless and driven by liberal money,


I've agreed that there has been, on balance, warming over the past 100 years. What I've said about the science is that 100 years is a laughably short timespan to get excited about when compared to the lifespan of the planet - kind of like concluding that ARod is done after he went 0-4 in a game.

But I am more concerned with doing a cost-benefit on the proposed solutions than arguing about the problem.

His kerfuffle about the term "liberal conspiracy" is a complete dodge, because that's what precisely what he's describing.


No, it is not. Please have the decency when discussing this to hold my own statements as my position, rather than holding comments on Fox News or whatever as my position.

   3933. formerly dp Posted: July 31, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4196998)
I've agreed that there has been, on balance, warming over the past 100 years. What I've said about the science is that 100 years is a laughably short timespan to get excited about when compared to the lifespan of the planet - kind of like concluding that ARod is done after he went 0-4 in a game.

But I am more concerned with doing a cost-benefit on the proposed solutions than arguing about the problem.


You can't do a "cost-benefit analysis on the proposed solutions" until you accept that humans putting carbon dioxide into the air is responsible for the problem. Have you come to terms with that? Because that would be a huge step forward on your part. If you have accepted this, you should probably also stop calling climate scientists hucksters.
   3934. Lassus Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4197017)
What I've said about the science is that 100 years is a laughably short timespan to get excited about when compared to the lifespan of the planet - kind of like concluding that ARod is done after he went 0-4 in a game

Ray, honestly, what is your experience with climate science? And before you ask me what mine is, I'm not the one making conclusions against dozens of studies. These conclusions of yours are based on what, exactly?


No, it is not. Please have the decency when discussing this to hold my own statements as my position, rather than holding comments on Fox News or whatever as my position.

My conclusion was a logical interpretaion of the facts of your previous statements. Tell me which statements I wrote in #3920 that are not your stated position and I will retract it/them with an apology.

   3935. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:08 PM (#4197021)
I don't ever use personal attacks, or call people names, or anything like that. I don't think calling someone a liar is a personal attack, but rather a statement of what the person did. When Johnny says "Ray said X" and Ray never said or even implied X, Johnny is lying. If it's a personal attack to then point out that he was lying, so be it.


Calling someone a liar is a personal attack, pretty much by definition. Saying a particular statement or post is incorrect is not a personal attack.

Just like calling someone a Troll is a personal attack, calling a statement inflamatory or without merit is not.

Ray you called me a Troll. Not my statement, but me, earlier in this thread even. This is an attack on my person, it is a personal attack. Your claim to "never use personal attacks" is provably incorrect. This does not make you a liar, it does mean your statement is incorrect.

EDIT: At the very least it is calling someone a name.
   3936. CrosbyBird Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM (#4197022)
What would that be. Certainly not fusion. Fusion produces just as much radioactive waste as fission.

Solar, geothermal, wind, hydroelectric?
   3937. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:12 PM (#4197023)
Doing "all we can" to work against something that is "beyond our control" doesn't make us smarter than the giraffes and chimps. It makes us dumber.
But things may not be beyond our control yet. We don't know where the tipping point is. We don't know how irreversible AGW is. Ignoring it makes us stupid.

And what you wrote is fear mongoring.
Yeah, because my constant drumbeat for incremental policy shifts over the course of decades is the drumbeat of fear.

What I wrote is fact. Species do go extinct all the time. The BEST research team's conclusions on AGW is further confirmation that humans can dramatically impact the environment. If the planet's warming up, a lot of species are going to go extinct, and we're not so special that that can't happen to us.

I've agreed that there has been, on balance, warming over the past 100 years. What I've said about the science is that 100 years is a laughably short timespan to get excited about when compared to the lifespan of the planet - kind of like concluding that ARod is done after he went 0-4 in a game.
I'm sure no climate researchers have ever considered timeframe. Only Ray.
   3938. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4197026)
2705. Ray (RDP) Posted: July 19, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4187682)

Bitter Mouse: you are a troll.


Ray not engaging in a personal attack or calling anyone a name.
   3939. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4197029)
But I am more concerned with doing a cost-benefit on the proposed solutions than arguing about the problem.


If you're to the "right" of Jim Manzi on this question, you're wrong. Just so you know.
   3940. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:17 PM (#4197030)
Oh, take it easy. Ray's called me a liar many times, and said that I hate freedom. He seems to likes you.
   3941. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4197032)
I've agreed that there has been, on balance, warming over the past 100 years. What I've said about the science is that 100 years is a laughably short timespan to get excited about when compared to the lifespan of the planet - kind of like concluding that ARod is done after he went 0-4 in a game.
The suggestion that the evidence for AGW is entirely just the last 100 years of warming suggests Ray has not done even the most cursory examination of the actual work of climate scientists.

If anyone is interested, the best primers are at RealClimate.org. Also good is Coby Beck's how to talk to a global warming skeptic.
   3942. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4197041)
The suggestion that the evidence for AGW is entirely just the last 100 years of warming suggests Ray has not done even the most cursory examination of the actual work of climate scientists.


Ray, to maintain any sort of standing in this debate, you need to address this point honestly and in a straight forward manner. MCoA is correct. Your claim that climate science is dependent on a mere 100 years of records/warming indicates that you have no real knowledge about the state of modern climate science. Please advise.
   3943. CrosbyBird Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4197048)
What I wrote is fact. Species do go extinct all the time. The BEST research team's conclusions on AGW is further confirmation that humans can dramatically impact the environment. If the planet's warming up, a lot of species are going to go extinct, and we're not so special that that can't happen to us.

I think that's a little much. We can survive in some of the most hostile environments: the tops of high mountains, deep below the surface of the ocean, on the moon, in Antarctica... humanity will adapt to pretty much anything.

It's a compelling enough argument to say "lots of people will suffer and die, and huge numbers of other species will become extinct." I think you do your argument a disservice with apocalyptic suggestions.
   3944. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4197053)
I think that's a little much. We can survive in some of the most hostile environments: the tops of high mountains, deep below the surface of the ocean, on the moon, in Antarctica... humanity will adapt to pretty much anything.


That's an article of faith, not a statement of fact. Any number of homo species have died out due to evolutionary shocks. The idea that we've teched ourselves out of that possibility seems extremely naive and theoretical to me.
   3945. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4197064)
That's an article of faith, not a statement of fact. Any number of homo species have died out due to evolutionary shocks.


I think the evolutionary shock that did in the last few Homo Species was... us.

   3946. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4197065)
It's a compelling enough argument to say "lots of people will suffer and die, and huge numbers of other species will become extinct." I think you do your argument a disservice with apocalyptic suggestions.

Agreed, I don't think a plausible scenario is the extinction of the human race. But a plausible scenario is a great deal of bad news for humans and many fellow planet inhabitants, and that's plenty bad enough to warrant serious effort to address it.
   3947. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:38 PM (#4197071)
I think the evolutionary shock that did in the last few Homo Species was... us.


Yes. See also "megafauna."
   3948. Spahn Insane Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4197084)
Bitter Mouse: you are a troll.

Ray not engaging in a personal attack or calling anyone a name.


Liar.
   3949. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4197098)
Bitter Mouse: you are a troll.


Ray not engaging in a personal attack or calling anyone a name.


Liar.


Darn you caught me. I apologize. I am very sorry. Is there anything I can do to make it up to you?
   3950. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4197103)
It's a compelling enough argument to say "lots of people will suffer and die, and huge numbers of other species will become extinct." I think you do your argument a disservice with apocalyptic suggestions.
If you go back through my other posts, it's clear that I don't think the apocalypse is coming, or else I'd be the one arguing for dramatic, draconian measures. You can't really plan policy around the apocalypse. But AWG puts stuff like this on the table, and I don't take it for granted that we could stupid ourselves right out of existence. After all, we're the species tried to adjust for the survivability of global thermal nuclear war.
   3951. CrosbyBird Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:54 PM (#4197104)
That's an article of faith, not a statement of fact. Any number of homo species have died out due to evolutionary shocks. The idea that we've teched ourselves out of that possibility seems extremely naive and theoretical to me.

It is even more likely than GW (which I freely concede is pretty much scientific fact), on the basis of actual empirical evidence about human survivability in poor climates. It's not just technology, either. People survived in deserts thousands of years ago (and still do today) without modern technology. If the breadbasket of the United States becomes the Sahara desert, we'll live as a species. It will be a much less pleasant existence, but we'll figure it out before all 7 billion of us die.

   3952. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4197105)
If we are arguing between extinction of many species and much death for us versus possible extinction for us, then I think we have enough information that doing nothing is not a good option. But maybe that is just me.
   3953. Spahn Insane Posted: July 31, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4197114)
Darn you caught me. I apologize. I am very sorry. Is there anything I can do to make it up to you?

Stop trying to ingratiate me into joining your global warming cult.
   3954. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4197123)
Just the thought is amusing. Seriously how many cults have no leader (queue the Al Gore rant) and encourage folks to read the science and learn about it and even challenge what is there? The main article of faith is science is right (or the best method we have for determingin truth), and the best science right now says X (where X = the current understanding regarding climate change).

But yeah you should totally join up with the cult. Seriously dude we have the best drugs and the loosest chicks, and the funding for various government grants - amazing. All the deniers have is Oil money, and everyone knows there is no money there.
   3955. CrosbyBird Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4197124)
After all, we're the species tried to adjust for the survivability of global thermal nuclear war.

I'm very confident that we'd survive that too, as a species. Civilization as we know it would end, but some people will live and find the few pockets of survivable land, and continue to reproduce.
   3956. Spahn Insane Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4197132)
Seriously dude we have the best drugs and the loosest chicks, and the funding for various government grants - amazing.

Well, since you put it that way.
   3957. formerly dp Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4197134)
Civilization as we know it would end, but some people will live and find the few pockets of survivable land, and continue to reproduce.


As a child of the '80s who grew up near an airbase, I loved me some post-nuclear apocalypse fiction. Post-environmental apocalypse fiction just doesn't have the same bite to it.

And I'm very happy to see that they're making a sequel to Wasteland.
   3958. formerly dp Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4197136)
All the deniers have is Oil money, and everyone knows there is no money there.


That and the promise of warmer weather for people who live in cold climates-- "global warming can't get here fast enough," as they say up north.
   3959. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4197140)
I'm very confident that we'd survive that too, as a species.
You know what? I'll concede this entire sub-point. We'll probably survive anything. However, if we're arguing between AGW causing catastrophic levels of death vs. absolute extinction, then either way we should probably consider doing something about AGW.
   3960. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4197141)
I'm very confident that we'd survive that too, as a species. Civilization as we know it would end, but some people will live and find the few pockets of survivable land, and continue to reproduce.


Is it your position that barring astrological events (the moon collapsing into the Earth; the sun exploding) humanity has evolved beyond evolution?
   3961. CrosbyBird Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4197148)
If we are arguing between extinction of many species and much death for us versus possible extinction for us, then I think we have enough information that doing nothing is not a good option. But maybe that is just me.

You're missing my point pretty badly here. (Hint: I agree that GW is happening, and that it's a bad thing, and that we should do something about it.)

The point is that it's very counterproductive to exaggerate the consequences of something that you're already having trouble convincing people to accept. That's building the straw man for your opponents to attack, and people should stop doing that. The most compelling argument against GW policy is that it's not as big a problem as people are suggesting and therefore doesn't merit the sort of sacrifices that policy changes demand. The best way to be able to avoid the charge of being hysterical idiots is to, you know, stop acting like hysterical idiots.

There is a strong enough case for action in just the following:

1) There is overwhelming scientific evidence that global temperatures are trending upward.

2) There is overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity contributes significantly to this upward trend.

3) There is strong scientific evidence that a continuation of this trend will cause significant problems for life on this planet: disruption of our food production, rapid extinction of a number of species, increasingly extreme weather patterns, and submersion of coastal territories.

If someone rejects any of these, there is literally nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. They're flat-earthers.

There are a number of people who reject a particular policy not because they are denialists, but because they have not been convinced that this particular policy will be a feasible, cost-effective solution. These are the people that you need to convince. You won't do that if you start distorting the evidence; people that will exaggerate the dangers of inaction are very likely to underestimate the cost and overestimate the benefits of their particular pet policy.
   3962. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4197152)
You're missing my point pretty badly here.


I was talking more about the whole subtopic, but I can see what you are saying and I apologize. Mischaracterizing you was not what I was trying to do.

EDIT: I am a believer of trying things, lots of things, as many as we can think of. Start small on each of them and keep getting better/more efficient as we learn more. So I think we agree (somewhat).
   3963. formerly dp Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4197159)
Crosby, that's very nicely-stated.

The framing I like locates global warming as both a national security and an economic issue, in the medium-term. I would even leave the rapid extinction of species out of #3, because that is such a non-starter for so many people (unfortunately).
   3964. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4197163)
1) There is overwhelming scientific evidence that global temperatures are trending upward.

2) There is overwhelming scientific evidence that human activity contributes significantly to this upward trend.

3) There is strong scientific evidence that a continuation of this trend will cause significant problems for life on this planet: disruption of our food production, rapid extinction of a number of species, increasingly extreme weather patterns, and submersion of coastal territories.

If someone rejects any of these, there is literally nothing you can do to convince them otherwise. They're flat-earthers.
Liar.

/Ray
   3965. CrosbyBird Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4197166)
Is it your position that barring astrological events (the moon collapsing into the Earth; the sun exploding) humanity has evolved beyond evolution?

I think we've gotten far enough above the next closest species that exists on this planet that we can respond (technologically or biologically) long before they're capable of knocking us off the top of the hill. Natural selection can't run its course because we're too aware of the process to allow it to replace us as the dominant species.

The next dominant species on this planet will either be an evolution of us, or something extraterrestrial.
   3966. Lassus Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4197172)
There are a number of people who reject a particular policy not because they are denialists, but because they have not been convinced that this particular policy will be a feasible, cost-effective solution.

A problem here is that "feasible" is pretty damned subjective, and for many, so is "cost-effective", as anything that means a squeezed nickel out of a particular type of person will immediately not be cost-effective.


You won't do that if you start distorting the evidence

Are you seeing that in this thread, and if so, how so? Legitimately curious.
   3967. CrosbyBird Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4197176)
Are you seeing that in this thread, and if so, how so? Legitimately curious.

Talking about human extinction is a distortion of the evidence.
   3968. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4197192)
Talking about human extinction is a distortion of the evidence.


Talking about it as an extreme worst case isn't really I don't think, but even if it is I think the "other side" is taking much larger liberties with the truth (two wrongs however do not make it right I admit).

I would rather work on minimizing the impact so we never get anywhere close to worst case though.

Has anyone else here seen the recent study where they dumped something (iron sulphide I think) into the ocean and the resulting bloom of algae (I think) sequestered a bunch of carbon? It is nice to see people thinking out of the box, but that sort of geo/environmental engineering strikes me as a very risky road to go down, unintended consequences being what they are. Still we may be stuck doing that kind of thing and hoping the negative effects of doing it are less than the negative effects of not doing it. More efficient light bulbs seems a much safer place to start.
   3969. Jay Z Posted: July 31, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4197272)
I think we've gotten far enough above the next closest species that exists on this planet that we can respond (technologically or biologically) long before they're capable of knocking us off the top of the hill. Natural selection can't run its course because we're too aware of the process to allow it to replace us as the dominant species.

The next dominant species on this planet will either be an evolution of us, or something extraterrestrial.


The likely thing to knock us out would be some sort of mass extinction event. The rays of the sun that are blocked or let in change, change in the content of the atmosphere, something of that order. Something that knocks out most of the existing mammalian and plant life likely won't spare us. If the best place to be is the bottom of the ocean for the next 10,000 years, we probably aren't going to make it in a geodisic dome.

Barring that, at some point our gene pool will probably see a natural diminishment in its diversity and reproductive capabilities. Sometimes things just die out.
   3970. robinred Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4197413)
I don't ever use personal attacks, or call people names, or anything like that


Not directly very often, but that is only because you are generally passive-aggressive and legalistic. One time, you openly backed and supported a guy on here calling me a troll, a liar, and several other names (not on a political thread) and when I called you on it, didn't own it. It's a long-standing pattern with you, as are the generalizations about "liberals."
   3971. robinred Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4197428)
As to Romney, I don't think this stuff will affect the election, as I said. But your press secretary saying "kiss my ass" isn't a very good idea on a number of levels.
   3972. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4197431)
The people who are going to vote for Romney aren't going to change their minds just because he considered the US to be a client state of Israel, no.
   3973. booond Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4197454)
As to Romney, I don't think this stuff will affect the election, as I said.


Not as a single event but people compile a thought process as to whether a candidate appears "presidential." For those people, this is one of many negative marks against Romney.
   3974. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4197478)
Not as a single event but people compile a thought process as to whether a candidate appears "presidential." For those people, this is one of many negative marks against Romney.

Yes, the press presents campaigns as narratives, with themes. And the Romney campaign's antagonizing the press, coupled with this sequence of gaffes on the road trip, could be developed by the media into an unflattering theme.

The point isn't that the election will clearly swing on this. But little things add up, good and bad. The 538 blog has consistently held Romney with something around a 30-to-35% chance of winning. If he's going to improve those odds and give himself a more serious chance at winning, he can't afford to be messing up little things.

   3975. booond Posted: July 31, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4197489)
   3976. Langer Monk Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:11 PM (#4197565)
   3977. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:17 PM (#4197572)
Probably the most interesting nugget to date about the 2012 election so far is the disparity between Electoral College projections and popular vote projections. Pretty much every popular vote projection is within percentage points, but the EC projections are a landslide for Obama, typically because liberals in deep blue states aren't motivated to vote in numbers, while reactionaries in deep red states are highly motivated to vote against Obama.

It's shaping up to be a very close popular election, but a landslide where it counts, which should be...interesting to watch.
   3978. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:21 PM (#4197575)
It's shaping up to be a very close popular election, but a landslide where it counts, which should be...interesting to watch.

Very true. And, just because the EC system is favoring my guy in this election doesn't mean the EC system isn't a trainwreck and shouldn't be deposited in the ash can of history.
   3979. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:28 PM (#4197580)
“I don’t know what the law says,” Aichele said under questioning, according to CBS.

Aichele also couldn’t provide any evidence that 99 percent of voters already have a valid form of ID, as the state has claimed.


Thus raising the bar yet higher in the annals of All-Time Totally Talking Out of One's Ass.
   3980. Bitter Mouse Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:30 PM (#4197581)
I always favored the plan to have each congressional district winner get its vote and then the winner of a state gets its two, but that is just my love of quirky rules. Straight up popular vote is probably the best bet.

Though I have seen complex mathematical analysis that says the current method is better in some ways (but I didn't really buy it).
   3981. Tripon Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4197585)
http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2012/07/rainer_klaus_reinscheid_arson.php?page=2

In local news, a UCI professor flips out, and threatens to rape and pillage a high school(University High) near UCI. (About half a mile away from the UCI campus), after his son was disciplined and committed suicide in Mason Park, also right by UCI and the high school.

Sad thing when somebody loses their sanity.
   3982. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:31 PM (#4197586)
And, just because the EC system is favoring my guy in this election doesn't mean the EC system isn't a trainwreck and shouldn't be deposited in the ash can of history.


It would be an interesting hiccup of history of an apoplectic GOP base pushed to overturn the EC because they won the popular vote but lost the EC.
   3983. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:37 PM (#4197592)

It would be an interesting hiccup of history of an apoplectic GOP base pushed to overturn the EC because they won the popular vote but lost the EC.

Well, only Nixon could go to China, you know.
   3984. Tripon Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4197594)
There's an easy way to make the EC work, and that would be to require each EC vote to go to the district it supposedly represent. It would also make 'safe' states like California and Texas much more competitive. Also would make it that much more expensive to run a Presidential campaign.
   3985. OCF Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:45 PM (#4197595)
Tripon: Wow. Considering how many Uni students I know .. (I didn't know this one.)
   3986. Tripon Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:50 PM (#4197597)
OCF: That student was only a freshman when he was disciplined and uh, set this whole motion of events to happen.
   3987. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:52 PM (#4197598)
Some interesting thoughts from David Frum, I would say. Distinctly more substantive than usual from him.

A couple of the money quotes:

Make no mistake, there is a factional fight under way in Texas. But the self-presentation of the Tea Party faction as a hardscrabble crew, representing "the people" against "the elites" is facially absurd. American politics generally, and Republican politics in particular, is a highly elite game, dominated by small groups of people who are very well-educated, very wealthy, or (as often as not) both.


Ted Cruz's looming success confirms that truth, and reminds us that it's time to retire this language of "establishment" and "insurgency." We need a new language to describe a new politics, in which it is precisely the most strongly established political forces that are also the most radical and uncompromising.




   3988. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4197600)
There's an easy way to make the EC work, and that would be to require each EC vote to go to the district it supposedly represent. It would also make 'safe' states like California and Texas much more competitive. Also would make it that much more expensive to run a Presidential campaign.

Wouldn't it be far simpler to just to retire the EC altogether and go with, you know, a popular vote?

It's beyond ridiculous that the nation's largest states are effectively made bystanders in the Presidential campaign.
   3989. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:56 PM (#4197601)
It would be an interesting hiccup of history of an apoplectic GOP base pushed to overturn the EC because they won the popular vote but lost the EC.


I believe the EC is in the Constitution, so it would take an amendment to eliminate. Well beyond the power of either party to enact alone.
   3990. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:57 PM (#4197602)
It's beyond ridiculous that the nation's largest states are effectively made bystanders in the Presidential campaign.


Florida is the 4th largest state and it had some small role in the 2000 election...

BTW, if I ever write a novel, it's going to have a tough on crime judge character named Hanging Chad.
   3991. OCF Posted: July 31, 2012 at 07:58 PM (#4197603)
Tripon: Grade level is no obstacle. I know some RSJ middle school students, too. Just wow.
   3992. Tripon Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4197604)
OCF: I see. I substitute teach and live in the area. (My place is just right across the street from both UCI and Uni), and a good portion of the students in my summer Health class I'm in attend Uni and went to Rancho.

I'm probably going to show this article tomorrow. If only to show what happens when you lose your mind.
   3993. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4197605)
Florida is the 4th largest state and it had some small role in the 2000 election...

While 1, 2, and 3 cooled their heels on the sidelines. Give me a break.
   3994. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:01 PM (#4197606)
I believe the EC is in the Constitution, so it would take an amendment to eliminate. Well beyond the power of either party to enact alone.


But how EV's are apportioned is left up to the states. New Jersey passed a law a few years back stating that when a majority of other states pass similar laws, they would apportion their EC votes in proportion to the popular vote, I believe.
   3995. Tripon Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:04 PM (#4197607)
But how EV's are apportioned is left up to the states. New Jersey passed a law a few years back stating that when a majority of other states pass similar laws, they would apportion their EC votes in proportion to the popular vote, I believe.


Right, so it'll be easier to get states to divvy it up in proportion of popular vote or some other mechanism. Can it be changed on the federal level?
   3996. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4197609)
While 1, 2, and 3 cooled their heels on the sidelines. Give me a break.


Would it have made any difference? Gore won all of CA and NY, while Bush won TX. Gore probably won EC votes way out of proportion to his popular vote totals in those three states. The split Florida right down the middle and Bush wins easily. I know Gore won the popular, so presumably he would have made up the difference further down the list, but the point is, CA, TX, and NY wouldn't have been determinative either way.
   3997. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:06 PM (#4197610)
New Jersey passed a law a few years back stating that when a majority of other states pass similar laws, they would apportion their EC votes in proportion to the popular vote, I believe.

A couple of states are already apportioning that way, yes? Which ones? (I'm too inept with the internets to quickly find out for myself.)
   3998. Steve Treder Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:10 PM (#4197614)
Would it have made any difference?

We can't possibly know, which is the entire point. If California or Texas *wasn't* a given, 100% in the bag for either party -- indeed, if the concept of "how XYZ State votes" was an irrelevance, and all that mattered was the national popular tally -- then without question the campaigns would be conducted in entirely different ways, money spent differently, resources deployed differently, etc. etc., with consequences aplenty (intended and non-).
   3999. They paved Misirlou, put up a parking lot Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:11 PM (#4197616)
We can't possibly know, which is the entire point. If California or Texas *wasn't* a given, 100% in the bag for either party -- indeed, if the concept of "how XYZ State votes" was an irrelevance, and all that mattered was the national popular tally -- then without question the campaigns would be conducted in entirely different ways, money spent differently, resources deployed differently, etc. etc., with consequences aplenty (intended and non-).


Well that's true.
   4000. Tripon Posted: July 31, 2012 at 08:12 PM (#4197617)
A couple of states are already apportioning that way, yes? Which ones? (I'm too inept with the internets to quickly find out for myself.)


I think the only state that does it so far is Nebraska. It'll take a large state like New York, Texas, or California to do it to really get the ball rolling and both parties in each state are too entrenched to allow that to happen.
Page 40 of 41 pages ‹ First  < 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Rough Carrigan
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogMLB: Tarp problems at Yankee Stadium
(22 - 10:11am, Jul 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

Newsblog2015 Competitive Balance Lottery Results
(13 - 10:09am, Jul 24)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(372 - 9:59am, Jul 24)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogSports Reference Blog: 1901-02 Orioles Removed from Yankees History
(33 - 9:58am, Jul 24)
Last: Der-K thinks the Essex Green were a good band.

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(856 - 9:56am, Jul 24)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(2881 - 9:54am, Jul 24)
Last: Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick.

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(19 - 9:41am, Jul 24)
Last: Yeaarrgghhhh

NewsblogAs shifts suppress offense, time has come to consider a rule change
(80 - 9:01am, Jul 24)
Last: BDC

NewsblogRubin: deGrom for NL rookie of the year?
(37 - 8:46am, Jul 24)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(43 - 8:34am, Jul 24)
Last: Ok, Griffey's Dunn (Nothing Iffey About Griffey)

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(131 - 7:44am, Jul 24)
Last: a fatty cow that need two seats (cough, cough)

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(86 - 5:36am, Jul 24)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 7-23-2014
(50 - 2:16am, Jul 24)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogCameron Maybin Suspended 25 Games
(17 - 11:36pm, Jul 23)
Last: Nasty Nate

NewsblogNats Fan in Colorado Shows Support with Curly W BEARD
(2 - 10:29pm, Jul 23)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

Page rendered in 1.0752 seconds
52 querie(s) executed