You don't need a catastrophic event to stress a human population to the point of extinction (see the history of pre-Columbian Americas) and rapid, massive ex-Toba climate change is a perfectly good explanation for population stress, if any.

Well, we're not referring to sub-species sub-groups. But, yes, that's true. After all, what, 99% of all the species that have ever existed are extinct. But, then, what's catastrophic may vary and be particular from species to species. Most extinction may be due to an inability to adapt, but there is always that dinosaur event thing, even on a less dramatic level, which is the Toba argument: it almost happened to us, the Tobaist say.

Slavery was not antithetical to capitalism.

Isn't that the claim made wrt the American South's Plantation Feudalism. Since at least the Time on the Cross book, the idea that American slave system was a moribund one has been exposed as a fiction. It took outside force to destroy. It wasn't nearly at the point where it would collapse on itself. At least that's the argument. And that system was feeding and feeding off capitalism, right?

Agreed with the broader point, but it wasn't even feudalism. It was capitalist slavery, through and through. You can have slavery within just about any economic system.

It's a narrative that fits an ideology.

“He told the Journal Sentinel that his father had advised him not to have premarital sex, and he took that seriously.

‘He also told me one thing, “If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,”‘ Rivard said. ‘Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she’s not going to say, “Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.” All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she’s underage. And he just said, “Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,” he said, “they rape so easy.”

‘What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, “If you’re going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.” So the way he said it was, “Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.”‘

‘So it’s been kind of taken out of context.’”

Despite our geographic diversity, we're still closely related--although, of course, we're more related to some sub-groups than others.

It's a narrative that fits an ideology.

What's the ideology?

But the Toba volcanic eruption was a truly catastropic event, with consequences deep and broad. If its effect attenuated the farther you got from the central happening, that should be reflected in the genetic makeup of the various peoples. Are our "orientals/asian" forebears more different than those of our near-east/african/euopean ones? Are those people closer to ground zero more closely related to each other than other peoples in other geographic locations. Seems to me this is, either now or in the near future, determinable. It'll be interesting to see what the revolution in genetic studies can show us.

Desperate Democrat grasps at straw that Rasmussen now has Obama +1.

The funny thing is that Rasmussen's party-weighting corner-cutting led them to underestimate Obama's lead earlier, and is now leading them to miss the extent of Romney's bounce.

Debates are not really my thing (which perhaps leads me to underestimate their importance), so I am not planning to watch tonight. But I think others here should watch and talk about it. So, who's watching?

Baseball, man. Baseball.

If there was no baseball tonight, I'd either have my scope out (it's clear!) or watch old Firefly episodes. Barring those options, I would extract my own teeth with dirty nail clippers before I'd watch Joe Biden and Paul Ryan "debate".

Isn't that the claim made wrt the American South's Plantation Feudalism. Since at least the Time on the Cross book, the idea that American slave system was a moribund one has been exposed as a fiction. It took outside force to destroy. It wasn't nearly at the point where it would collapse on itself. At least that's the argument. And that system was feeding and feeding off capitalism, right?
Agreed with the broader point, but it wasn't even feudalism. It was capitalist slavery, through and through. You can have slavery within just about any economic system.

Historically, sitting presidents have usually done poorly in the first debate. President hasn't debated in a while, the challenger can attack on specifics while being vague about his own ideas. Challenger has also debated more recently, many times in the primaries. The only one I don't remember struggling was Clinton, and Bill Clinton's favorite thing to do is talk for two minutes about any political issue.

So they are cooking the numbers, but then telling everyone they are cooking them. That is pretty bold of those Chicago pols.

When I go to Google News, the top headline is "Swing state polls echo national trend: Mitt Romney on the rise". When I look for articles on jobs, the top headline is "Why Jobless Claims May Not Be as Good as Market Thinks".

How are planetary views from your rooftop? Sounds pretty awesome - I know urban areas aren't ideal for astronomy but there is something romantic sounding about looking at planets from a Manhattan rooftop. You might like a solar scope - the PST is very nice and would suit your situation pretty well, I'd think.

After you lectured me about referring to Obama as "Barry" last week, I'm sure you'll want to do the same with Maureen Dowd and the NYT.

A freshman congressman running for re-election on a pro-life platform urged his pregnant mistress to get an abortion a decade ago, according to a transcript of the recorded conversation.

The undated phone recording appears to have been made before Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais' divorce from his wife, Susan, was finalized in 2001. According to the transcript, DesJarlais tells the unidentified woman that he is concerned that she hadn't taken steps toward terminating the pregnancy

The DesJarlais campaign did not dispute the contents of the transcript first reported by the Huffington Post, but condemned the circulation of "desperate personal attacks."

"This is old news from the last election cycle that Tennesseans have already widely rejected," spokesman Robert Jameson said in an email.

Stewart said at a press conference Wednesday that DesJarlais "doesn't deny that as a medical doctor he had an affair with a patient, got that patient pregnant and then begged and pleaded with her to terminate the pregnancy."

I will give long odds to anyone who wants to take the under-50 on DesJarlais' final tally. Tennessee Republicans are not going to vote against a pro-life guy who pushed for his mistress to have an abortion. I don't even blame them for it; they think abortion is murderer and they'll choose a one-time murderer over a mass murderer. Obviously not what I believe, but why I believe they won't suddenly be shocked into voting D.

So what was the alternative, not release the numbers? There would be no conspiracy theories there, would there. The reporting seems pretty even about this.

It's just as cheap when the Times does it, yes. That headline is especially odd since the piece itself never calls him "Barry". Or even "Barack".

Actually, it's odd that it calls him "Obama" (and Mitt Romney "Romney") since NYT style is to call them "Mr. Obama" and "Mr. Romney". They're usually very formal with people's names.

As far as only "admitting" it after questioning, is that unusual? Are these statistics normally released with comment, while here they did not, or is this just the SOP?

If releasing the bare numbers is what they always do (even when they have issues like this one), then adding that disclaimer has too much potential to be political in nature. That is not their job.

I don't know what the SOP is, but any statistic whose methodology changes from week to week or month to month isn't much of a benchmark.

Again, what is the alternative? They rely on the states to report the numbers. They actually have complained about California and their problems with reporting. Everyone knows these issues, which is probably why they have Q&A after the release. I don't say trust them, but then again I am not accusing anyone of cooking the numbers.

They released the numbers that they have. I suspect that they are required to by either statute or regulation to avoid the appearance of gaming the system. Because if they had been allowed to use discretion and not released them, I have no doubt that you and Jack Welch would have had a complaint about that.

Alan Abramowitz of Huffington Post and The Democratic Strategist noticed that Gallup has increased its share of nonwhites from 27 percent the week of the convention to 32 percent last week, a nearly 20 percent boost. In other words, Gallup seemed to have tweaked its methodology with just weeks to go until Election Day to reflect the criticism that has come from the left.

I'm sure he'll get re-elected again since the voters supposedly already this all happened when they elected him the first time.

Perhaps because that is not the procedure? Because once they provide comments, it opens the door to all types of potential mischief, so their procedure is to release the numebrs and then take Q&A. Why is that not enough?

The term feudalism has also been applied—often inappropriately or pejoratively—to non-Western societies where institutions and attitudes similar to those of medieval Europe are perceived to prevail.[10] Some historians and political theorists believe that the term feudalism has been deprived of specific meaning by the many ways it has been used, leading them to reject it as a useful concept for understanding society.

The article also does not define "non-whites." If that included hispanics (whether or not they self identify as white), then that would seem to bring the demographics closer in line to those of the country as a whole. If not, then the 28% figure seems more in-line.

Why do you keep pretending that a simple notation — "NOTE: This report does not include California" — is entirely unavailable as a solution?

The state's labor market slowed in August as California employers added only 12,000 nonfarm jobs last month, the 13th straight month of net job gains.

The unemployment rate dipped slightly, to 10.6% from 10.7%, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Employers across six industries added jobs, with education and health services posting the largest over-the-month increase with 8,900 jobs. The leisure and hospitality industry added 4,400 jobs.

In other words, Obama's sudden 4-point jump in approval rating at Gallup was due to the methodology changing and not an actual change in public opinion. Unreal.

bumping its sample from 27 percent non-white (matching 2008's exit polls) all the way up to 32 percent non-white

What the article actually says:

Of course, why providing the disclaimer at the Q&A is insufficient still has not been answered.

Just as a matter of curiosity, can you envisage any evidence which you would then feel justified as sufficient to draw inferences that would support the Toba hypothesis?

Did you read the wikipedia article? Are the people cited in that article scientists?
Have you goggled this? Do you see everyone who supports the Toba theory as non-scientists?

Not to take this too far, but am just curious about your view of the people who propose this. Do you see them as sort of creationist types--that is, they are ignoring the best scientific evidence to a deplorable degree, or basing their views on a a very non-scientific basis (what Gaelan had in mind maybe with his comment about it serving an ideology).

Or, is yours more of a best evidence approach to the matter. A respectable argument could be made on both sides, you agree, but your side is the better. IOWs, is this a creationism v. science thing or a selfish gene v. a group evolutionary view.

[1655] don't forget the whistleblower lawsuit joined by the feds against Gallup in late August.

Adding California doesn't move the national numbers.

Anyway your complaint's are BS:

1: There has been no bump in Gallup's Obama v. Romney numbers, just in Gallup's Obama Job Approval numbers

not accurate

Gallups'
racial sampling has apparently been varying
last 4 job approval polls, non-whites:

27.0
27.8
27.8
25.7
31.6

4: Gallup's job approval poll is NOT among voters, not registered voters, not likely voters, but among ADULTs- and non-Whites are in fact some 32% of the adult population- therefore 31.6 is in fact far more representative of the population than what Gallup was doing before - for this particular poll

Adding California doesn't move the national numbers.

The BLS has already admitted that the omission of some or all of California's numbers does move the numbers.

Because they want to be consistent on how they release the data, because to do otherwise can send signals, intended or otherwise. If they always just release the data and then do Q&A, adding a disclaimer or comment can send a message. I also suspect that rules, regulations or internal policies prevent what you want.

Of course, why providing the disclaimer at the Q&A is insufficient still has not been answered.

Really? Because California's numbers came out today, and according to the LA Times, CA added some trickle of jobs. (And yes, the numbers in the article come from the BLS.) If it moved the unemployment numbers in any direction, it moved them down.

You're just making things up and claiming it's a rebuttal.

Of course, why providing the disclaimer at the Q&A is insufficient still has not been answered.

Maybe because allowing misinformation to propagate for an hour is stupid, especially when it's entirely preventable?

but one question to ask in things like this is if Hispanic Whites are being counted as Hispanic or as White or as something else.

No, I'm countering your ######## with facts. There's a line where spin or puffing becomes pure bullsh!t and you've crossed it awhile back, you've been teetering on the brink for awhile now so you probably had no clue where the edge was.

It's much easier to just assume the poll is being rigged against your side

The proportion of the population depends on the category of Hispanic whites, people who mark that on the census but may well reply Hispanic if given fewer choices in a phone survey. This is a reasonably large group, more than 26 million. Without them, Non-Hispanic Whites are 63% of the population.

Well, then, the BLS is even more incompetent than I've claimed, since they've admitted/claimed otherwise (which, incidentally, was the entire basis for this discussion).

It's not my fault your big rebuttals tend to lack the "rebuttal" part.

As always, you're looking for conspiracies where none exist. BLS — and I've looked everywhere now — didn't admit or claim anything of the sort that you're claiming they did, they only said hey didn't have the numbers because California didn't report them, and as far as I can tell BLS made no claim whatsoever as to whether or not California would have moved the needle, and if it did in which direction.

The core issue, however, remains the same: The national unemployment numbers ARE under 8%.

the problem with responding to something like this is I'm not sure whether the issue is:

A: Your overall lack of reading comprehension
B: You don't know what the word "rebuttal" means
C: Both of the above
D: You are blinded by partisanship

I'm going to go with "D" but I am open to being convinced that you are in fact a moron.

Daily polls that quietly change their methodology a month before an election deserve any questioning they receive.

Edit, since I seem perilously close to turning into Sam here, I'm going to take a break from countering JoeK's nonsense, please don't take my silence to any of his forthcoming posts to indicate that I agree (or disagree) with them.

Not that sunsetting Medicare in 10 years or shifting the tax burden from the rich to the middle class have anything to do with the debt, but crisis!

Nothing is funnier than watching "liberals" pretend that millions of discouraged workers don't exist, along with millions of workers who are involuntarily underemployed.

"The rich" simply don't have enough money to pay for all of the things people seem to want from government. If people want to argue that taxes on the rich should be raised, that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves here and claim the middle class doesn't need to pay a whole lot more, too.*

The top 20% in the US own 93% of the country's financial assets. How much do you expect to get from the remaining 7%? If you taxed the bottom 80% at a 100% rate, you still wouldn't come close to balancing the books.

If you want them to pay a little more as some sort of symbolic "share the burden" ploy, fine. But don't pretend it has anything to do with balancing the budget.

The weather is affecting your sense of humor. There really are a lot of things funnier, trust me.

As we've been hearing for years now, "the rich" make up a very small percentage of the population. Since raising taxes on the rich is generally politically popular, it would have been done by now if that was the easiest, best, and/or only way to pay for all of the things government is currently providing. The reality is, even the most demagogic liberal politicians understand that "the rich" don't have enough money to pay for the current government extravaganza.

As we've been hearing for years now, "the rich" make up a very small percentage of the population. Since raising taxes on the rich is generally politically popular, it would have been done by now if that was the easiest, best, and/or only way to pay for all of the things government is currently providing.

If people want to argue that taxes on the rich should be raised, that's fine, but let's not kid ourselves here and claim the middle class doesn't need to pay a whole lot more, too.*

...of why I think the Black Death is a critical (perhaps necessary but not sufficient) part in the formation of the modern world.