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

Friday, August 01, 2014

OT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video

As Gov. Chris Christie prepares to cap off his trip to New Hampshire tonight with a fundraiser at a minor-league baseball game, the Democratic National Committee has released a online video taking a swing at the Republican governor’s handling of New Jersey’s economy.

The clip is modeled after an old-time newsreel — the kind that would have been shown in movie houses when Babe Ruth ruled the baseball diamond in the 1920s.

It notes that under Christie — a possible candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — New Jersey has among the highest property taxes and slowest job growth in the U.S.

“On his economic record, Chris Christie strikes out,” the video’s narrator says.

Bitter Mouse Posted: August 01, 2014 at 09:10 AM | 6359 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: new jersey, politics, video

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 22 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >  Last ›
   2101. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:33 PM (#4768817)
"Most" and "very good" might be a bit of a stretch, but it's truly bizarre to see people blaming teachers and schools for the cultural failures that generate tough-to-teach kids. Our society isn't set up to educate kids well -- we don't value education in any way, really, other than in the elite precincts -- and there's no way teachers are going to overcome that massive structural flaw.

I haven't seen anyone here blame either teachers or schools for the above. The non-liberals simply don't bury their heads in the sand when it comes to "tough-to-teach kids" and the (abysmal) ROI of spending more money on the system as it's currently set up.
   2102. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:37 PM (#4768821)
No, vouchers are largely about trying to screw teachers unions. How many conservatives would still endorse vouchers if it came with the idea that all charter/private school teachers must also join the teacher's union?

The teachers' unions are a major source of the corruption. They make bad and even criminal teachers impossible to fire, and prevent paying good teachers more.
   2103. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4768823)
No, vouchers are largely about trying to screw teachers unions. How many conservatives would still endorse vouchers if it came with the idea that all charter/private school teachers must also join the teacher's union?

This is hilarious both coming and going. The "party of choice" suddenly becomes adamantly anti-choice when it comes to school choice and union membership.
   2104. BDC Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:44 PM (#4768828)
vouchers are largely about

… trying to divert some cashflow that would otherwise circulate in the public system, would be my generalization.

Again, there are lots of idealistic charter ventures. But they're all based on introducing a profit motive, we should not kid ourselves about that part.
   2105. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:46 PM (#4768830)
No, vouchers are largely about trying to screw teachers unions. How many conservatives would still endorse vouchers if it came with the idea that all charter/private school teachers must also join the teacher's union?
That's like saying that Bush's invasion of Iraq was about screwing teachers unions, because conservatives wouldn't have supported the invasion of it came with the idea that all soldiers had to join the teacher's union: a complete non sequitur. Conservatives wouldn't support lots of things that they otherwise support if those things were accompanied by a stupid and damaging rule. I'm not sure why you think that proves that their support for those things is insincere.
   2106. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4768831)
This is hilarious both coming and going. The "party of choice" suddenly becomes adamantly anti-choice when it comes to school choice and union membership.


It's just an example to highlight how vouchers aren't really about improving outcomes for children.

The purpose of vouchers is primarily to allow for fundamentalist Christian teaching and to screw teacher's unions. If it were really about improving outcomes for children, then we'd be able to provide an evidence based answer. But it's not about better outcomes, of course, because that's all secondary to ideology.

That's why it's pointless to discuss vouchers.

   2107. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4768835)
Again, there are lots of idealistic charter ventures. But they're all based on introducing a profit motive, we should not kid ourselves about that part.

I'd be perfectly content with a system that only offered vouchers to non-profit schools.
   2108. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 04:53 PM (#4768836)
Again, there are lots of idealistic charter ventures. But they're all based on introducing a profit motive, we should not kid ourselves about that part.
Except that most charters are not-for-profits.
   2109. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4768838)
How many conservatives would still endorse vouchers if it came with the idea that all charter/private school teachers must also join the teacher's union?


How many baseball fans would still watch baseball if they played golf on the field instead?
   2110. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:02 PM (#4768841)
Except that most charters are not-for-profits.

Little Michelle Rhee is going to bed hungry tonight. Won't you help?
   2111. BDC Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4768846)
Except that most charters are not-for-profits

Man, I've worked for nonprofits long enough to know that there's a heap of profit in them not-for-profits :)
   2112. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:18 PM (#4768855)
Man, I've worked for nonprofits long enough to know that there's a heap of profit in them not-for-profits :)

There's a heap of profit in the government schools. It just gets split up more ways.

If we've waved the white flag on actually educating "tough-to-teach kids," which seems to be the case, then there's no reason teachers should be making $80,000 to $120,000 in places like NYC, L.A., and D.C. I'm sure we could find more than enough competent babysitters who'd be happy to work for half that amount.
   2113. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:32 PM (#4768867)
The purpose of vouchers is primarily to allow for fundamentalist Christian teaching and to screw teacher's unions. If it were really about improving outcomes for children, then we'd be able to provide an evidence based answer. But it's not about better outcomes, of course, because that's all secondary to ideology. That's why it's pointless to discuss vouchers.

Very open-minded of you. Of course, there is a lot of variety in charter schools, just like public schools. Judging charter schools solely by those run by con artists after the money suggests more than a bit of an agenda. But if all charter schools are to be judged by their worst performing schools, how do public schools do when judged by that same criteria? Not very well, I'm afraid.
   2114. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:40 PM (#4768870)
That's right; you're acting in good faith, whereas people who disagree with you are not.


Hey, Davey. Tell us again about how all Democratic support for social programs is really just a ruse to get people hooked into government subsidy and thus generate Democratic voters.
   2115. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:53 PM (#4768878)
Very open-minded of you. Of course, there is a lot of variety in charter schools, just like public schools. Judging charter schools solely by those run by con artists after the money suggests more than a bit of an agenda. But if all charter schools are to be judged by their worst performing schools, how do public schools do when judged by that same criteria? Not very well, I'm afraid.


I never mentioned con artists grifting people. I mentioned people wanting to indoctrinate children in their religion and breaking unions.

Too busy looking at Republican PAC sponsored polls to read posts before responding?
   2116. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:55 PM (#4768879)
I mentioned people wanting to indoctrinate children in their religion

Which is better than letting the state indoctrinate them with its religion.
   2117. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 11, 2014 at 05:56 PM (#4768881)
"Most" and "very good" might be a bit of a stretch, but it's truly bizarre to see people blaming teachers and schools for the cultural failures that generate tough-to-teach kids. Our society isn't set up to educate kids well -- we don't value education in any way, really, other than in the elite precincts -- and there's no way teachers are going to overcome that massive structural flaw.

I knew if I hung around here long enough, Sugar Bear would post a comment that made lots of sense, though I think he'd agree that there are plenty of exceptions in the non-elite precincts.

--------------------------------------------------

Wait, if conservatives are all hot for charter schools, why don't they give all their surplus money to them and stop stealing money from the rest of us? (/the Ray test for sincerity of political beliefs.)

Still waiting for a response to that. Funny how this test of sincerity only seems to apply to more standard forms of income redistribution like Obamacare.
   2118. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:05 PM (#4768892)
Which is better than letting the state indoctrinate them with its religion.


So you think kids should be taught young Earth creationism on the taxpayer's dime?
   2119. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4768894)
I never mentioned con artists grifting people. I mentioned people wanting to indoctrinate children in their religion and breaking unions.

Which is unfortunate, because the fact that this is a nation of hucksters and grifters and scammers is the biggest obstacle to all these massive schemes of reform and it's the biggest one here. This is the nation, after all, that invented the 22-year-old with $150,000 in debt for a worthless degree.
   2120. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:09 PM (#4768895)
Wait, if conservatives are all hot for charter schools, why don't they give all their surplus money to them and stop stealing money from the rest of us? (/the Ray test for sincerity of political beliefs.)

Still waiting for a response to that. Funny how this test of sincerity only seems to apply to more standard forms of income redistribution like Obamacare.

??

You think it's hypocritical that conservatives don't do more of something they oppose in the first place?

Also, giving vouchers to parents doesn't "steal money" from anyone. In a sense, it actually returns stolen money.
   2121. GregD Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:12 PM (#4768896)
There is a role for charter schools. A few actually work and should be studied. A decent number do--like the nearby neighborhood schools--work for some students and not for others. A decent number--varying on the state regime--are con-men academies. A decent number are people over their heads who are sincere but run schools much worse than surrounding schools. Some are covers for religious instruction at taxpayer expense.

But any support for charters has to come up against a couple of issues:
1) very few charter schools do better for the students they serve than neighboring public schools do with those kids. Some charters are good at screening kids. But in terms of delivering improvement, charters as a whole come in below regular schools. So if regular schools are terrible, charter schools are worse than terrible, in the aggregate. Or if regular schools are okay, charter schools are close to okay. But arguing that charters do great and public schools are terrible flies in the face of facts.

2) a lot depends on charter school law. And there's been near-complete capture in some states by profiteers. I understand that some people--noted on this thread--care zero about corruption with government funds. That's okay. And I am sure they will hold back from corruption in agencies they don't like.

If charter advocates push for high standards, rigorous auditing, and quick closures for charters that fail or are corrupt, charters can be a useful part of the system. But if they instead cast their lot, as many have, with the corruptees, then they have no one to blame but themselves. And they have abandoned any argument about carrying about government spending.
   2122. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:15 PM (#4768898)
Which is unfortunate, because the fact that this is a nation of hucksters and grifters and scammers is the biggest obstacle to all these massive schemes of reform and it's the biggest one here.


The biggest obstacle to vouchers is that there's very little evidence that they achieve their goals en masse.

Some charter and private schools, who accept specific students, perform better than public schools, both on an education level and on a spending level. However, those results end up being difficult to replicate on a larger scale.

Edit: Coke to GregD who makes the point better one post up.
   2123. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:21 PM (#4768904)
The biggest obstacle to vouchers is that there's very little evidence that they achieve their goals en masse.

Some charter and private schools, who accept specific students, perform better than public schools, both on an education level and on a spending level. However, those results end up being difficult to replicate on a larger scale.

This sudden concern with results and ROI is interesting coming from perhaps BBTF's biggest cheerleader for universal pre-K, the long-term ROI for which is little more than theoretical.
   2124. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:23 PM (#4768907)
This sudden concern with results and ROI is interesting coming from perhaps BBTF's biggest cheerleader for universal pre-K, the ROI for which is little more than theoretical.


I linked you multiple longitudinal studies showing lasting life benefits from pre-K. I realize it's much easier to make points when you blatantly misrepresent facts, but please, let's try to act like adults.

I hate the ####### lying you do, Joe. I think you're a relatively decent guy who has different politics than I do, but the ####### lying is so ####### irritating.
   2125. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:32 PM (#4768911)
I linked you multiple longitudinal studies showing lasting life benefits from pre-K. I realize it's much easier to make points when you blatantly misrepresent facts, but please, let's try to act like adults.

I hate the ####### lying you do, Joe. I think you're a relatively decent guy who has different politics than I do, but the ####### lying is so ####### irritating.

We went through this at the time: Your links were utterly unsupportive of the claims made.

There are some narrow demographics that seem to benefit from pre-K. The solution to that is targeted pre-K, not universal pre-K.
   2126. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:33 PM (#4768912)
We went through this at the time: Your links were utterly unsupportive of the claims made.


See 2124.
   2127. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:35 PM (#4768913)
Wait, if conservatives are all hot for charter schools, why don't they give all their surplus money to them and stop stealing money from the rest of us? (/the Ray test for sincerity of political beliefs.)


Still waiting for a response to that. Funny how this test of sincerity only seems to apply to more standard forms of income redistribution like Obamacare.

??
You think it's hypocritical that conservatives don't do more of something they oppose in the first place?


Wait, I thought that conservatives were in favor of vouchers. And since conservatives are always suggesting that Obamacare supporters fund the ACA by voluntarily paying extra taxes instead of stealing money from conservatives to fund it, why don't conservatives voluntarily cough up extra taxes to fund voucher programs, rather than taking money from voucher opponents to pay for them?

Also, giving vouchers to parents doesn't "steal money" from anyone. In a sense, it actually returns stolen money.

Your silly rhetoric aside, that's not even literally true if the voucher recipient wasn't paying income taxes to begin with.
   2128. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4768916)
See 2124.

Someone is, indeed, lying here. It isn't me.

***
why don't conservatives voluntarily cough up extra taxes to fund voucher programs, rather than taking money from voucher opponents to pay for them?

Nobody is "taking money from voucher opponents to pay for [vouchers]." That's one of the reasons your silly "gotcha" fails.

Your silly rhetoric aside, that's not even literally true if the voucher recipient wasn't paying income taxes to begin with.

Schools are generally funded by property taxes. Anyone who isn't living in government-owned public housing is paying property taxes, either directly or indirectly.
   2129. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:44 PM (#4768921)
2128. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:38 PM (#4768916)
[ Ignored Comment ]


Now, that's better!
   2130. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 06:45 PM (#4768922)
Now, that's better!

Looks like someone's having a bad case of the Mondays.

Who knew universal pre-K could be so contentious?
   2131. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:00 PM (#4768932)
We went through this at the time: Your links were utterly unsupportive of the claims made.

There are some narrow demographics that seem to benefit from pre-K. The solution to that is targeted pre-K, not universal pre-K.
I'm not sure if you two are talking about the same studies I'm thinking of, but if so, I think you concede too much. The ones I've seen don't show that large scale pre-K programs benefit narrow demographics; they show that if you chop up data into small enough sub-chunks, you can find spurious correlations. You can't run an experiment on a large population and then wait until after the experiment is over, cherry-pick the subjects that showed an effect, and conclude that the method affects that subgroup. "Transgender Hispanics retained their gains in math until age 9, so pre-k must have been the cause!"

(I saw one study where - as is typical - gains evaporated by about Grade 3 - but then there were some blips in performance in 12th grade, and rather than concluding that these blips were statistical noise, the pre-K proponents claimed that pre-k was somehow the cause, despite the lack of any effect between 3rd grade and 12th.)


In the alternative, it's possible that ts is referring to some of the tiny experiments that have never shown any ability to be scaled up, like the Abecedarian.
   2132. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:05 PM (#4768934)
So you think kids should be taught young Earth creationism on the taxpayer's dime?

No, that's made up crap. But they can teach any morals they want to as far as I'm concerned.

That's why you need accrediting agencies for the schools. Preferably private ones.

A school that teaches the earth is 8000 years old shouldn't be accredited b/c that's simply not true.

But if a school wants to teach that any and all consenting sex is OK, or that only marital sex is OK, they should be allowed to teach either, as long as the parents have a choice where they send their kids.
   2133. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:08 PM (#4768939)
In the alternative, it's possible that ts is referring to some of the tiny experiments that have never shown any ability to be scaled up, like the Abecedarian.


Chicago pre-school study

Perry Pre-school study

The Abbot Pre-school study

Literally every long-term study finds lasting benefits.
   2134. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:15 PM (#4768942)
But if a school wants to teach ... that only marital sex is OK, they should be allowed to


See, this is where you give away the game that you don't really believe that abortion is murder. Condoms and birth control are much more effective at reducing abortions than anything else.

If you really believed that abortion was murder, you'd be in favor of teaching responsible sex habits.
   2135. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:17 PM (#4768944)
A school that teaches the earth is 8000 years old shouldn't be accredited b/c that's simply not true.


And a school that teaches that a magic spell can turn a cracker into crypto-jerky? That's not true either, let's make sure we root out the charlatans wherever they may lurk.
   2136. The District Attorney Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:17 PM (#4768945)
Robin Williams, 63, apparent suicide.

Quite honestly, I didn't usually enjoy what he did with his talent, but he clearly was a tremendous talent. I remember especially in this moment a commercial he did with his daughter (for a video game, I think?) that was surprisingly touching. Very shocking and sad news.
   2137. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:26 PM (#4768947)
I'm trying to imagine the 700 Club headline -- "Earth 2,000 years older than originally thought."
   2138. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:27 PM (#4768948)
Chicago pre-school study

Perry Pre-school study

The Abbot Pre-school study

Literally every long-term study finds lasting benefits.

These are three studies of disadvantaged kids. Even assuming the studies show what Shipman claims they show, that means that targeted pre-K would be the solution, not universal pre-K — just as I said in #2125.

Pointing out that Shipman's links didn't support his claims apparently drove him to hysterics, but he's right back posting links that don't support his claims.
   2139. The Yankee Clapper Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:36 PM (#4768952)
Very open-minded of you. Of course, there is a lot of variety in charter schools, just like public schools. Judging charter schools solely by those run by con artists after the money suggests more than a bit of an agenda. But if all charter schools are to be judged by their worst performing schools, how do public schools do when judged by that same criteria? Not very well, I'm afraid.

I never mentioned con artists grifting people. I mentioned people wanting to indoctrinate children in their religion and breaking unions.

I was a little sloppy there, using tshipman's post as a jumping off point for two tesponses. His contention that charter schools were created primarily to advance fundamentalist Christian education and screw teachers unions misses the mark by a wide margin. There are a lot of different folks involved in charter schools. Why anyone wants to discourage true grassroots efforts at improving local education is beyond me.

The other part of my post was meant to address the point others were making about some charter schools being run by con artists who were more interested in pocketing the money than educating the kids. Again, there are things that can and should be done to weed out that stuff, but if you are gong to judge all charter schools by the worst ones, you should also judge all public schools by the worst ones, and that ain't very pretty, either.
   2140. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:36 PM (#4768954)
(2134) Simply not true. The "pill" revolution drove the demand for abortion, as pregnancy became viewed as a failure of contraception rather than a natural consequence of sex.

That also ignores the fact that some people believe artificial birth control to be immoral.
   2141. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:45 PM (#4768956)
I'm trying to imagine the 700 Club headline -- "Earth 2,000 years older than originally thought."


This is funny, and I acknowledge the wit, but for the record, Pat Robertson on the 700 Club is one of the few fundie voices that outright calls Young Earth Creationism a farce.
   2142. BDC Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:47 PM (#4768958)
I dunno, snapper. Both contraception and abortion extremely long predate the Pill. They seem to me to be basic human ways of coping with, of managing, sex and reproduction.
   2143. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 07:55 PM (#4768963)
I dunno, snapper. Both contraception and abortion extremely long predate the Pill.


I have many newspapers from the 1890s (for boxing references) and my collection includes a copy of the San Francisco Chronicle from that era featuring an advertisement for "English Pennyroyal" which is alleged to address feminine concerns. Mmmmm hmmmm.
   2144. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 11, 2014 at 08:00 PM (#4768966)
Both contraception and abortion extremely long predate the Pill.

The difference is that the Pill and licensed abortion worked a hundred times better. Remember, steroids are a horror but amphetamines were coffee.
   2145. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 08:27 PM (#4768982)

In an effort to combat the country’s declining fertility rate, Iran’s parliament has voted to ban certain forms of birth control, as well as media publicity of contraception and family planning altogether. The state news agency IRNA reported that the bill — which bans vasectomies and tubal ligations and fines any doctors who perform them — is the government’s response to a recent decree by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called on the Iranian people to have more babies so as to “strengthen national identity” and counteract “undesirable aspects of western lifestyles.”


Link
   2146. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 11, 2014 at 08:39 PM (#4768986)
In an effort to combat the country’s declining fertility rate, Iran’s parliament has voted to ban certain forms of birth control, as well as media publicity of contraception and family planning altogether.

A few months ago I attended a seminar with an econ professor who had done all kinds of demographics research. He thinks Iraq and Afghanistan are lost causes, too many 20-yo running around for the labor force to absorb. Iran, OTOH, had a more western-style age distribution, and should be much more stable. He oversimplified obviously, but at the same time everybody in the room was going 'hmmm'.
   2147. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:02 PM (#4769002)
Chicago pre-school study

Perry Pre-school study

The Abbot Pre-school study

Literally every long-term study finds lasting benefits.
First, as Joe points out, these involve programs for the poor, not universal pre-K, which was his original comment. If you have any evidence that these programs benefit the middle class or wealthy, let me know; my understanding is that pre-K is actually negative for those groups. But that's a relatively minor quibble; it's an argument against the politician sound-byte of universal pre-K, but it isn't an argument against pre-K programs. More importantly, one of those three isn't "long-term" at all, and the other two suffer from the flaw I indicated -- that they're small programs that there's no evidence that can be scaled up. (The Perry study was based on a program for just 60 kids! And the Perry program required that all teachers have college degrees -- something that would be prohibitive for a nationwide program.) Most importantly, the last claim is just nutty. There is no social science phenomenon where "every" study shows something. In fact, most studies do not find benefits. Of course, the biggest are the Head Start studies, which have the advantage of analyzing a program most like what a large scale government pre-K program would actually be in practice. But other studies also show little or no benefit. (But of course, cherry-picking small scale studies isn't going to get us anywhere. Either give a large scale study or do a meta analysis.)
   2148. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:28 PM (#4769020)
Hey, Davey. Tell us again about how all Democratic support for social programs is really just a ruse to get people hooked into government subsidy and thus generate Democratic voters.


At least that theory is better than telling us that the failed social programs which contributed to the vicious cycle of dependency were for no purpose at all other than making liberals feel good about themselves.
   2149. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:30 PM (#4769023)
That also ignores the fact that some people believe artificial birth control to be immoral.


Those people, though, are what is known as "stupid."
   2150. tshipman Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:30 PM (#4769024)
But other studies also show little or no benefit.


Did you mean to link something else?

Title is: "Early Intervention in Low Birth Weight Premature Infants"

CONCLUSIONS. The findings in the HLBW INT group provide support for preschool education to make long-term changes in a diverse group of children who are at developmental risk.


First, as Joe points out, these involve programs for the poor, not universal pre-K, which was his original comment.


That's because most middle-class to upper class children either already have pre-K or have a dedicated stay-at-home parent. You would have problems with the sample. Saying, well, it might only work for poor kids! That is a terrible argument because most middle class or upper class kids already have arrangements. Finding a suitable control would be challenging.

Of course, the biggest are the Head Start studies, which have the advantage of analyzing a program most like what a large scale government pre-K program would actually be in practice.


Why wouldn't we look at something like Oklahoma? (PDF) Since, you know, it actually operates a universal system.

Even in Head Start, evidence showed improvements in test scores. The program has only had a follow-up at the 3rd grade mark, while longer term studies have shown markedly reduced risks of criminal activities, HS dropouts and substance abuse. HS had issues with study design in that some of their control group still attended pre-school, while some of their test group transferred out.

The bottom line for me is that pre-K might or might not have lasting benefits for middle to upper class children. It's hard to tell because so many of them attend already. It has lifelong benefits for poor children.

So the worst case scenario is that we reduce crime, dropouts and substance abuse, and we save middle-class parents money. Wow. What an awful risk.
   2151. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:48 PM (#4769036)
Robin Williams, 63, apparent suicide.


Concidentally -- but not ironically -- I was just watching some of that godawful Mrs. Doubtfire movie last week.

I didn't enjoy his "comedy" (*) at all and thought it was irritating and unfunny, but he seemed like a nice guy so as always it's too bad he took his life. It makes you a little worried that others around you may be having similar issues.

That said, he always struck me as someone who was sort of mentally ill, and his (apparent) suicide does nothing to counter said worthless armchair psychobabble diagnosis of mine. At some point over the years it dawned on me that the shtick that he did wasn't shtick at all: it was simply a normal mode of operation. James Carville just told a story about how when he met Williams in the green room at one of those horrid late night shows, he was struck that Williams "performed" for 25 minutes in the green room for the people in there; Carville concluded from that that Williams was "always under pressure to perform." But in my view, Williams wasn't "performing" at all; that was a natural state of his. Some years ago I started noticing that I couldn't recall a single interview with Williams where he acted normally and wasn't doing shtick; perhaps they're out there and I just kept missing them.

(*) I use the word "comedy" because the stream of consciousness swerving from one random thought/voice/impression to the next was (a) not funny, and (b) a natural state of his rather than "comedy."
   2152. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 09:52 PM (#4769040)

That said, he always struck me as someone who was sort of mentally ill,


I've read nothing about this unfortunate news other than a couple of references here (I've been offline since work, till a few minutes ago), but I'm pretty sure I've seen him on lists of "famous people with bipolar disorder." Which isn't definitive by any means, of course.
   2153. zonk Posted: August 11, 2014 at 10:23 PM (#4769068)

I've read nothing about this unfortunate news other than a couple of references here (I've been offline since work, till a few minutes ago), but I'm pretty sure I've seen him on lists of "famous people with bipolar disorder." Which isn't definitive by any means, of course.


I believe that's correct - I'm pretty sure Williams talked about it some back before/back when famous people didn't talk about such things. It's very difficult for anyone to maintain when dealing with bipolar disorder - I imagine that's especially true of someone that's an actor/comedian whose bit leans heavily on letting enough of the manic side out.

Sad.
   2154. Howie Menckel Posted: August 11, 2014 at 10:34 PM (#4769076)
"But in my view, Williams wasn't "performing" at all; that was a natural state of his."

well, yes. I doubt this is the most shocking suicide of a generation.
He lived life in 6th gear, I suspect, and that led to his greatest successes and failures.

In I think an unrelated but not irrelevant note, a former colleague of mine wrote this in the NY Times last weekend re autistics and their supposed inferiority until they "get with the program" - which frankly can also be seen as embracing the neurotypical mediocrity. The tie-in, I suspect, is "intensity."

http://nyti.ms/1ula4UW

I asked him if there was anything he missed about being autistic. “I miss the excitement,” he said. “When I was little, pretty often I was the happiest a person could be. It was the ultimate joy, this rush in your entire body, and you can’t contain it. That went away when my sister started teasing me and I realized flapping wasn’t really acceptable. Listening to really good music is the main time I feel that joy now. I still feel it in my whole body, but I don’t outwardly react to it like I used to.”


   2155. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 11, 2014 at 10:48 PM (#4769085)
Yeah. I've mentioned before that I have a mild case of bipolar disorder myself (my mother was a textbook case, in contrast), & there's really nothing I know of that can compare to the high. On the other hand, before too long you start suspecting that if you're feeling really, really good, probably that's really, really bad. Which is ... not great.
   2156. Lassus Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:11 PM (#4769111)
The idea that I or anybody else where I grew up in small-town rural northern NY was liberally indoctrinated by our public schools is quite possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
   2157. Lassus Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:16 PM (#4769113)
I have many newspapers from the 1890s (for boxing references)

Any comic pages lurking there?
   2158. greenback calls it soccer Posted: August 11, 2014 at 11:40 PM (#4769132)
On the other hand, before too long you start suspecting that if you're feeling really, really good, probably that's really, really bad. Which is ... not great.

And if you're not careful, you'll paint all your walls red in the middle of the night.
   2159. CrosbyBird Posted: August 12, 2014 at 02:35 AM (#4769162)
Yeah. I've mentioned before that I have a mild case of bipolar disorder myself (my mother was a textbook case, in contrast), & there's really nothing I know of that can compare to the high. On the other hand, before too long you start suspecting that if you're feeling really, really good, probably that's really, really bad. Which is ... not great.

I don't know if that's worse or better than what I ended up with (depression/anhedonia).

On the one hand, at least you have highs. I generally have lows and very lows. Once in a very rare moment, I experience what I imagine to be happiness, but it usually is chemically induced. Right now, I'm very motivated to be a better version of myself; I've lost nearly 40 pounds since April and my apartment is cleaner and more organized than it's been since I moved in over four years ago. I'm actually trying the dating world again. But I am not happy. Just sort of shoring up areas of my life for when the next inevitable depressive episode hits again. (The really shocking thing is that all of this positive energy is coming with no medication, because with doctor supervision, I weaned off of it a few months ago.)

On the other hand, knowing that you can be outrageously happy and powerful as a real version of yourself must be very difficult, especially if the medication that keeps you sane takes that happiness away. I do not think I would have the willpower to remain medicated if I were bipolar. (Although I'm not sure, because I'm not a drug addict or alcoholic even though being under the influence is pretty much the best my life ever gets.)
   2160. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 07:11 AM (#4769173)
I have many newspapers from the 1890s (for boxing references)

Any comic pages lurking there?


Nah, wasn't the only comic strip back the "The Yellow Kid"?

The San Francisco boxing scene was red hot back then, Jack London used to cover the big fights for the paper.
   2161. A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats Posted: August 12, 2014 at 08:09 AM (#4769179)
I couldn't recall a single interview with Williams where he acted normally and wasn't doing shtick; perhaps they're out there and I just kept missing them.


Last night Marc Maron posted his interview with Williams from April 2010. I began listening to his show sometime after, so I missed this. Likely worth checking out if you're sincerely interested in hearing a different perspective.
   2162. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 12, 2014 at 08:11 AM (#4769181)
It's almost impossible to figure out what was going on in Hillary Clinton's mind when she gave that Atlantic interview. In one incredibly stupid move, she's pre-emptively sapped a huge amount of the energy she's going to need from her party's base, while in apparent hot pursuit of a hawkish faction of voters who are practically non-existent in her own party, and not likely to vote for her if they're Republicans. Add to that the whole stab-in-the-back bit, and the inconvenient fact that much of what she's criticizing took place while she was Secretary of State, and it's as insane an interview as I've seen this side of John Rocker. All I can say is that it's lucky we're seeing this now rather than in the middle of the primary season, and Thank God the Republican base won't allow them to come up with any real alternative.

A Rift in Worldviews Is Exposed as Clinton Faults Obama on Policy

Frank Bruni's take: Hillary Clinton, Barbed and Bellicose
   2163. Lassus Posted: August 12, 2014 at 08:25 AM (#4769182)
I... wouldn't be entirely shocked if Hillary probably discussed that whole thing with Obama and the DNC prior. I mean, maybe that's giving everyone too much credit, but I don't think it's going to hurt her.


Nah, wasn't the only comic strip back the "The Yellow Kid"?

There were a few others, not many. The Katzenjammers started in the late 1890s.
   2164. Howie Menckel Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:15 AM (#4769193)

I think Hillary has always had a real shot with independents who have a hawkish bent, especially with her husband having been so, well, pragmatic across the board. And if Obama doesn't turn around his positive/negative polling - and it's hard to do as lame duck - seems possible that being an "anti-Obama" might play well all over.
   2165. Lassus Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:20 AM (#4769195)
...seems possible that being an "anti-Obama" might play well all over.

Again, I'm probably kind of an optimist, but I think given the intense and frequent anti-Obama positions taken by the entirety of the GOP, Hillary's comments are not really going to register as anti-Obama in a way that will hurt her.
   2166. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:22 AM (#4769197)
Did you mean to link something else?
No. The study overall found no meaningful effect overall; when it was subdivided (which, as I've said, is a dubious practice) into very low birth weight and low birth weight, it found negative effects for the former group and minor positive effects in a few cherry-picked areas for the latter.

Why wouldn't we look at something like Oklahoma? (PDF) Since, you know, it actually operates a universal system.
You could. And people have. And found no meaningful positive long term impact.

The bottom line for me is that pre-K might or might not have lasting benefits for middle to upper class children. It's hard to tell because so many of them attend already. It has lifelong benefits for poor children.
I didn't realize it was subjective. Because the bottom line for the real world (as opposed to "for you," is that there are no "lifelong" benefits for anyone, and possibly negative benefits for middle to upper middle class children. Unless you delusionally believe you can scale up an obscenely expensive experimental pilot program for 50 people into a nationwide program.

So the worst case scenario is that we reduce crime, dropouts and substance abuse, and we save middle-class parents money. Wow. What an awful risk.
No; the worst case scenario is that we blow tens of billions of dollars on a massive social engineering project of no value.
   2167. zonk Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:23 AM (#4769198)
It's almost impossible to figure out what was going on in Hillary Clinton's mind when she gave that Atlantic interview. In one incredibly stupid move, she's pre-emptively sapped a huge amount of the energy she's going to need from her party's base, while in apparent hot pursuit of a hawkish faction of voters who are practically non-existent in her own party, and not likely to vote for her if they're Republicans. Add to that the whole stab-in-the-back bit, and the inconvenient fact that much of what she's criticizing took place while she was Secretary of State, and it's as insane an interview as I've seen this side of John Rocker. All I can say is that it's lucky we're seeing this now rather than in the middle of the primary season, and Thank God the Republican base won't allow them to come up with any real alternative.


I think it's easy to think Hillary's position is calculating, but I personally think it's more likely she's just a hawk.

She always has been... the whispers during Bill's administration, her time in the Senate, and what we know about her input as SoS -- she's an interventionist. Personally, that makes me very much NOT my candidate in the primary... but the only way I could see her foreign policy position as more unacceptable than whomever takes the GOP nod would be if Rand Paul got the nomination and I don't see that happening (and even if he did, there are a host of reasons I'd prefer Hillary over Rand).

   2168. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:32 AM (#4769201)
It's almost impossible to figure out what was going on in Hillary Clinton's mind when she gave that Atlantic interview.
I assume you ignore the possibility that what was going through her mind was, "This is what I believe, and I should say so."

(In which case the political calculation you're looking for is presumably, "Defending an incompetent foreign policy won't make me look good.")
   2169. The Good Face Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:39 AM (#4769205)
I think it's easy to think Hillary's position is calculating, but I personally think it's more likely she's just a hawk.


Pretty much this. There are hawks and there are hawks, and I don't think she's in the McCain/Cheney category of hawkishness, but I think she's considerably more hawkish than Obama and the interview was simply a rare case of a politician saying what they believe.

No; the worst case scenario is that we blow tens of billions of dollars on a massive social engineering project of no value.


Actually the worst case is that it has negative value, which is entirely possible. Universal pre-K incentivizes the dumbest, least fit mothers to have more kids.
   2170. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:39 AM (#4769206)
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called on the Iranian people to have more babies so as to “strengthen national identity” and counteract “undesirable aspects of western lifestyles.”


Oh, sure, more babies, that'll work....

I think it's easy to think Hillary's position is calculating, but I personally think it's more likely she's just a hawk.

She always has been... the whispers during Bill's administration, her time in the Senate, and what we know about her input as SoS -- she's an interventionist.


That I think is probably likely... though I don't discount the possibility that this is just a "calculated" move to separate herself ahead of time from Obama.
   2171. Lassus Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:44 AM (#4769208)
Universal pre-K incentivizes the dumbest, least fit mothers to have more kids.

Universal pre-K isn't exactly incentivizing rich, stupid, unfit mothers, yet they're spitting out kids at an excessive rate as well. I somehow doubt it's much of an incentive.


Oh, sure, more babies, that'll work....

I wonder how their pre-K is. Thanks, Obama.
   2172. The Good Face Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4769213)
Universal pre-K isn't exactly incentivizing rich, stupid, unfit mothers, yet they're spitting out kids at an excessive rate as well.


This is gibberish. What are you trying to say here?
   2173. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:52 AM (#4769214)
It's almost impossible to figure out what was going on in Hillary Clinton's mind when she gave that Atlantic interview. In one incredibly stupid move, she's pre-emptively sapped a huge amount of the energy she's going to need from her party's base, while in apparent hot pursuit of a hawkish faction of voters who are practically non-existent in her own party, and not likely to vote for her if they're Republicans. Add to that the whole stab-in-the-back bit, and the inconvenient fact that much of what she's criticizing took place while she was Secretary of State, and it's as insane an interview as I've seen this side of John Rocker. All I can say is that it's lucky we're seeing this now rather than in the middle of the primary season, and Thank God the Republican base won't allow them to come up with any real alternative.

She's a mediocre and labored candidate, as we've tried to explain. This admixture of "look at me, I'm relevant" and establishing a "position" on an issue that's completely at odds with the actual record is the rule, not the exception with her.

She was the Secretary of State of the United States when the foreign policy she's critcizing was designed and implemented. Who could she possibly think she's kidding? And now to second-guess the President she served when he's had to re-engage in Iraq and Ukraine continues to flare ... wow.
   2174. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 09:56 AM (#4769217)
As Andy mentioned above, Hillary looks incredibly disingenuous (#shock) saying all this stuff, considering she was Secretary of State during BO's first term. Not only did she not resign from her post, but AFAIK, no reporter covering Foggy Bottom every leaked information suggesting that she was an unhappy camper.

And as Good Face points out, being more hawkish than Obama is like a professional ballplayer bragging that he hits better than Mario Mendoza.

EDIT: What SBB said too.

Let's be clear about one thing though: Hillary wouldn't be saying this if pretty much everyone, and that even includes Chuck Todd and Andrea Mitchell, has come to the realization that BO is clueless on foreign policy.
   2175. Lassus Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:07 AM (#4769230)
This is gibberish. What are you trying to say here?

The part you left out. I think your statement that pre-K incentivizes your undesirables having children is either false or so negligible as to be completely pointless.


EDIT: What SBB said too.

Watching you agree with SBB on the Clintons is going to be fun, Jason.
   2176. Joey B. has reignited his October #Natitude Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:08 AM (#4769232)
That said, he always struck me as someone who was sort of mentally ill.

Maybe his hero Obama deciding to bomb the crap out of Iraq was what finally pushed him over the edge for good.
   2177. BDC Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:11 AM (#4769237)
She was the Secretary of State of the United States when the foreign policy she's critcizing was designed and implemented. Who could she possibly think she's kidding? And now to second-guess the President she served

Isn't it pretty much the prerogative of Secretaries of State to engage in this kind of dissent? Colin Powell has done a lot of this. George Shultz would do it while still in office. And leave us not go back to Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan.

Clinton was Obama's primary opponent, and a major difference between them was that she'd voted for a war he says he wouldn't have. Obama appointed her to State on the team-of-rivals principle. I'd be more surprised if she was unswervingly loyal to his policies.
   2178. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:16 AM (#4769245)
Isn't it pretty much the prerogative of Secretaries of State to engage in this kind of dissent? Colin Powell has done a lot of this. George Shultz would do it while still in office. And leave us not go back to Woodrow Wilson and William Jennings Bryan.

Colin Powell received lots of #### from hawks and doves alike for going along with the program.*

* Powell eventually assigned Dick Armitage to the task of leaking to the press the moaning and groaning.
   2179. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:18 AM (#4769248)

Maybe his hero Obama deciding to bomb the crap out of Iraq was what finally pushed him over the edge for good.


You're a piece of ####. But then you knew that. Hell, you revel in it. Hardly anyone here, whatever their politics, can stand your leprous ass. Why the hell you enjoy that, I have no idea. I would say "get help," but then why should any sort of therapist be subjected to your loathsomeness?

   2180. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4769262)
I assume you ignore the possibility that what was going through her mind was, "This is what I believe, and I should say so."

That would be a first for a politician, in the history of mankind.
   2181. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:25 AM (#4769263)
Pretty much this. There are hawks and there are hawks, and I don't think she's in the McCain/Cheney category of hawkishness, but I think she's considerably more hawkish than Obama and the interview was simply a rare case of a politician saying what they believe


HRC is your classic liberal interventionist. She's not a neocon (Cheney, McCain), but she believes in the value of intervention as a policy option.

considering she was Secretary of State during BO's first term. Not only did she not resign from her post, but AFAIK, no reporter covering Foggy Bottom every leaked information suggesting that she was an unhappy camper.


During Obama's first admin, there was a good deal of coverage of the internal dissent between Clinton's interventionist beliefs and the more dovish ideas of Biden and Kerry. When Clinton was replaced by Kerry it was generally noted as Obama embracing the more dovish/counter-terrorism side of the playbook, at the expense of the Clinton hawkish/COIN preferences.
   2182. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:30 AM (#4769270)
During Obama's first admin, there was a good deal of coverage of the internal dissent between Clinton's interventionist beliefs and the more dovish ideas of Biden and Kerry.

Oh, I'm sure there were internal disagreements but don't remember anything reaching the press that was even remotely similar to Rumsfeld vs. Powell. Meanwhile, Biden wasn't particularly dovish and Kerry went along with whatever the administration decided, much to the chagrin of Bob Menendez and a few other SFRC Democrats.
   2183. Lassus Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:33 AM (#4769277)
That would be a first for a politician, in the history of mankind.

The person next to you in your office is no less a hypocrite than a politician, they are just not as publicly open to examination.
   2184. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:35 AM (#4769281)
The person next to you in your office is no less a hypocrite than a politician, they are just not as publicly open to examination.


Liar. Everyone else is in Las Vegas this week.
   2185. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:40 AM (#4769291)
I didn't enjoy his "comedy" (*) at all and thought it was irritating and unfunny


Somehow this doesn't surprise me...

Early on Robin Williams was funny, then his frantic stream of consciousness shtick did seem to get old...
A lot of successful stand-up comics seem to have psychological/emotional issues...

When I was growing up (in the 70s) Jerry Lewis was "a star" (in very much the same sense that Robin Williams is a "star" to 20 somethings today)- I mean he was famous for stuff he had done in the 50s/60s - stuff I'd see on TV- and I didn't get it, I never got it, he was not funny, he was never funny- at least not remotely enough to offset his incredibly annoying persona- he was the flesh and blood embodiment of what it means to be chalk scratching a chalk board- endlessly. OTOH late 70s, for awhile there, Robin Williams was the funniest man on earth, that was over quickly by the 80s, as far as I can tell his only effective acting roles the last 30 years have been the non-comedic ones (Ms. Doubtfire? Jesus Christ was that unwatchably horrible, don't get me started on Popeye or Hook... he was OK as TR in Night at the Museum- in a very small role). Jerry Lewis actually could play bitter old men in non-comedic roles quite well at the end of his career- of course that was because he WAS a bitter old man... Actually the only almost decent Jerry Lewis comedy was the Nutty Professor- but only the Buddy Love scenes where Lewis was quite obviously impersonating Dean Martin...
   2186. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:44 AM (#4769293)
That would be a first for a politician, in the history of mankind.

The person next to you in your office is no less a hypocrite than a politician,


You need to change your employment of that's the case.

The guy to my immediate left and my immediate right are as far as I can tell far less morally repellent than your average Pol... the next guy over to the right OTOH...
   2187. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4769308)
A lot of successful stand-up comics seem to have psychological/emotional issues...


If by "a lot" you mean "more or less all of them," yes. Comedy is brutal.
   2188. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 10:56 AM (#4769309)
No. The study overall found no meaningful effect overall; when it was subdivided (which, as I've said, is a dubious practice) into very low birth weight and low birth weight, it found negative effects for the former group and minor positive effects in a few cherry-picked areas for the latter.


Considering that the study was investigating the effectiveness on low birth weight children, splitting them into cohorts seems like a good decision to gauge impact. Calling that "cherry-picking" is being anti-science.

But of course, we all know that libertarians believe in principle over empirical evidence, that's why they're libertarians.

Because the bottom line for the real world (as opposed to "for you," is that there are no "lifelong" benefits for anyone, and possibly negative benefits for middle to upper middle class children. Unless you delusionally believe you can scale up an obscenely expensive experimental pilot program for 50 people into a nationwide program.


Yes, I do "delusionally believe" that you can find 11 billion dollars a year. It's not even hard. The easiest way would be to just put a tax on only libertarians, since they uniquely burden society with their beliefs. I'd also accept eliminating the carried interest loophole, eliminating the tax deductibility of second mortgages, reducing funding on student loans for college or simply not paying for it, because I'm tired of only programs that benefit humanity requiring pay-fors.

And, of course, dozens of studies have found lifelong benefits.

No; the worst case scenario is that we blow tens of billions of dollars on a massive social engineering project of no value.


We know that there's value in providing it for at-risk youths. We also know from other countries' examples (France, for instance) that people place tremendous value on universal pre-k. Parents in the US place a great amount of value on it as well.
   2189. The Good Face Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:06 AM (#4769320)
Considering that the study was investigating the effectiveness on low birth weight children, splitting them into cohorts seems like a good decision to gauge impact.


Well then that's not an argument for "Universal" pre-K then, is it? You're displaying a startling lack of self-awareness for a guy who constantly throws hissy fits about other people being "dishonest."

And, of course, dozens of studies have found lifelong benefits.


None of which you ever manage to post here.

We also know from other countries' examples (France, for instance) that people place tremendous value on universal pre-k. Parents in the US place a great amount of value on it as well.


Well sure. Who doesn't love "free" baby sitting? I'm sure there's no possible downside to incentivizing the people who are too poor or too stupid to successfully care for, or obtain care for, their children to have still more children.
   2190. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM (#4769327)
FWIW, ObamaCare Enrollment Is Shrinking, Top Insurers Say:

Aetna's (NYSE:AET) ObamaCare exchange statistics should clear up any doubt as to why the Obama Administration has been tight-lipped about enrollment since celebrating 8 million sign-ups in mid-April.

Reality, evidence suggests, could require quite a come-down from those lofty claims.

The nation's third-largest health insurer had 720,000 people sign up for exchange coverage as of May 20, a spokesman confirmed to IBD. At the end of June, it had fewer than 600,000 paying customers. Aetna expects that to fall to "just over 500,000" by the end of the year.

That would leave Aetna's paid enrollment down as much as 30% from that May sign-up tally.

"I think we will see some attrition ... We're already seeing it. And we expect that to continue through the end of the year," CEO Mark Bertolini said in a July 29 conference call.

It's not clear how representative Aetna's experience is of broader exchange trends, or whether its projection may be too conservative. (If it were representative, a similar 30% decline would drop ObamaCare enrollment to 6 million or less.)

Still, as one of ObamaCare's largest players, participating in exchanges in 16 states plus D.C., Aetna's experience provides a pretty good window into what is happening across the country, and there are other indications that enrollment has turned down.

   2191. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:18 AM (#4769329)
It's almost impossible to figure out what was going on in Hillary Clinton's mind when she gave that Atlantic interview. In one incredibly stupid move, she's pre-emptively sapped a huge amount of the energy she's going to need from her party's base, while in apparent hot pursuit of a hawkish faction of voters who are practically non-existent in her own party, and not likely to vote for her if they're Republicans. Add to that the whole stab-in-the-back bit, and the inconvenient fact that much of what she's criticizing took place while she was Secretary of State, and it's as insane an interview as I've seen this side of John Rocker. All I can say is that it's lucky we're seeing this now rather than in the middle of the primary season, and Thank God the Republican base won't allow them to come up with any real alternative.

I think Hillary has always had a real shot with independents who have a hawkish bent, especially with her husband having been so, well, pragmatic across the board. And if Obama doesn't turn around his positive/negative polling - and it's hard to do as lame duck - seems possible that being an "anti-Obama" might play well all over.


I think it's easy to think Hillary's position is calculating, but I personally think it's more likely she's just a hawk.


I assume you ignore the possibility that what was going through her mind was, "This is what I believe, and I should say so."


She's a mediocre and labored candidate, as we've tried to explain. This admixture of "look at me, I'm relevant" and establishing a "position" on an issue that's completely at odds with the actual record is the rule, not the exception with her.

She was the Secretary of State of the United States when the foreign policy she's critcizing was designed and implemented. Who could she possibly think she's kidding? And now to second-guess the President she served when he's had to re-engage in Iraq and Ukraine continues to flare ... wow.


As Andy mentioned above, Hillary looks incredibly disingenuous (#shock) saying all this stuff, considering she was Secretary of State during BO's first term. Not only did she not resign from her post, but AFAIK, no reporter covering Foggy Bottom every leaked information suggesting that she was an unhappy camper.


All of these responses are perfectly legit, but they don't address a basic political point that's independent of whatever merits there may or may not be to her comments.

And the point is pretty simple: In order to guarantee her election, Hillary is going to have to energize the enthusiasm of three overlapping but not identical groups of voters: (1) Her original supporters from 2008 and before; (2) Obama's core supporters who voted for him in the 2008 primaries, but who admired her work as Secretary of State, and who would now want (or at least be willing) to reward her loyalty by backing her in 2016; and (3) Democratic voters who supported Obama in 2008 in great part because of his opposition to the war in Iraq.

Her Atlantic interview risks alienating the last two of those categories of voters, and doesn't really help her among the first category, who would likely vote for her anyway come Hell or high water.

And what does she gain? Seriously, how many voters are there in the category of "Leaning Republican, turned off by the Tea Party, but only willing to switch if the Democrat comes across more hawkish than Obama"? And in fact, while granting that Obama's ratings in foreign policy are low, how low did Bush's ratings sink to once the reality of the Iraqi quagmire began to sink in?

None of this is directed against the substance of Hillary's criticisms, because while they're a mixture of honest reflection, triangulation, and a fair amount of backstabbing, the much more important point (for her, anyway) is their political impact. And IMO that impact is going to be almost wholly negative among two key constituencies she'll need the most in 2016, and it's not going to be easy to repair the damage.





   2192. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4769332)
Well then that's not an argument for "Universal" pre-K then, is it? You're displaying a startling lack of self-awareness for a guy who constantly throws hissy fits about other people being "dishonest."


Yes, of course it is. Even if universal pre-K showed only financial benefits to middle-class parents (I'm assuming that there are vanishingly small benefits to upper class parents since they all pretty much go to pre-K or have nannies or whatever), it's still providing a benefit to everyone in the form of reduced crime, substance abuse and other issues.

The reason to make it universal is that it benefits everyone, and why create a poverty trap? Finally, as the adage goes, programs for the poor are poor programs. Making it universal ensures better buy-in.

None of which you ever manage to post here.


FYI, I realize that you appear to have a learning disability, but blue, underlined text means that the author has created a link to another page. If you click on those links, you can see what people are talking about.

Don't worry, I'm sure you'll figure it out, little guy!
   2193. BDC Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4769337)
No, I think our right-libertarians have a point. Universal Pre-K isn't giving us the ROI we need to compete with whoever. Neither are Universal K and Universal 1-12. What we need in this country is to get those little hands into factories where they can turn productivity around and restore our pig iron production to its antebellum world dominance.
   2194. Fancy Pants Handles lap changes with class Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4769338)
That would be a first for a politician, in the history of mankind.

The person next to you in your office is no less a hypocrite than a politician,

The obvious difference being that what politician's publicly say affects them materially. It can be the difference between unemployed/employed, political advancement, power and money. If you think politician's don't run everything they say publicly through a filter to estimate those effects, you are being naive. And if whatever comes out the other side of that filter matches their personal beliefs or not, is purely coincidental.

But for the vast majority of people, such a filter is simply not useful.
   2195. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4769340)
2068. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 11, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4768692)
Funny how the same liberals who drone on about "choice" every day are so adamantly opposed to poorer people having some choice when it comes to schools.


Just as funny as the same conservatives who drone on about "pro-life" are so adamant in their support of the death penalty.

There, now that that's out of the way, can you please stop with the "choice" nonsense. Of is it your belief that pro lifers in support of the death penalty are equally deserving of ridicule?
   2196. tshipman Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:37 AM (#4769341)
No, I think our right-libertarians have a point. Universal Pre-K isn't giving us the ROI we need to compete with whoever. Neither are Universal K and Universal 1-12. What we need in this country is to get those little hands into factories where they can turn productivity around and restore our pig iron production to its antebellum world dominance.


This is part of what drives me crazy. Universal K-12? Oh, sure, that's great. Universal pre-K? WHOA WHOA WHOA, HOLD THE ####### TELEPHONE HERE.

It's like, seriously?
   2197. The Good Face Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:46 AM (#4769345)
Yes, of course it is. Even if universal pre-K showed only financial benefits to middle-class parents (I'm assuming that there are vanishingly small benefits to upper class parents since they all pretty much go to pre-K or have nannies or whatever), it's still providing a benefit to everyone in the form of reduced crime, substance abuse and other issues.


This is a completely different argument (and one that assumes all sorts of facts not in evidence) from the one you made earlier, based on studies that didn't actually support what you thought they supported. Again, for a guy who throws tantrums about "dishonesty", the irony is pretty thick.

FYI, I realize that you appear to have a learning disability, but blue, underlined text means that the author has created a link to another page. If you click on those links, you can see what people are talking about.


You posted several studies that were easily and swiftly debunked. Then you claimed there were "dozens" of studies that supported your earlier debunked claims. Were you saving the really good stuff for a later date? Or are you just doubling down on your previously discredited arguments?
   2198. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:48 AM (#4769347)
Well sure. Who doesn't love "free" baby sitting? I'm sure there's no possible downside to incentivizing the people who are too poor or too stupid to successfully care for, or obtain care for, their children to have still more children.


I don't follow the logic here. How in the hell is a one time offer of half a year of free babysitting, 4 hours per day, any sort of incentive for one to have a child if one does not wish to otherwise? You do realize that the otherwise indifferent parent still has to care for the child from ages 0 to 4, and during age 4, for the half of the year that school is not in session, and 20 hours per day that it is in session. That free 720 hours during the kid's first 43,800 hours of life, well that's a deal changer if I ever saw one.
   2199. JE (Jason) Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4769350)
Just as funny as the same conservatives who drone on about "pro-life" are so adamant in their support of the death penalty.

I hardly qualify as being pro-life (e.g., support abortion rights for months 1-3), but seriously? I know of no fetus that has been accused of, let alone convicted, of first-degree murder.
   2200. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 12, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4769353)
I hardly qualify as being pro-life (e.g., support abortion rights for months 1-3), but seriously? I know of no fetus that has been convicted of first-degree murder.


So, you're saying that "pro life" has limits, that it is referring to a specific stance on one specific issue and does not mean that one is universally against killing anyone for any reason? You don't say.
Page 22 of 64 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
The Piehole of David Wells
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 10-1-2014
(6 - 10:28am, Oct 01)
Last: bobm

NewsblogNed Yost on the sixth inning and his bullpen usage: “its just one of those things” | HardballTalk
(24 - 10:26am, Oct 01)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogDayton Moore's vision for Kansas Royals validated - ESPN
(15 - 10:24am, Oct 01)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(15 - 10:23am, Oct 01)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogNL WILD CARD 2014 OMNICHATTER
(15 - 10:17am, Oct 01)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

NewsblogSpector: Stats incredible! Numbers from the 2014 MLB season will amaze you
(42 - 10:16am, Oct 01)
Last: Der-K and the statistical werewolves.

NewsblogWhy the Nats will win the World Series - ESPN
(1 - 10:14am, Oct 01)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogLinkedIn: 10 Sales Lessons From “The Captain”
(5 - 10:07am, Oct 01)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogThe Economist: The new market inefficiencies
(21 - 9:57am, Oct 01)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogWSJ: Playoff Hateability Index
(20 - 9:42am, Oct 01)
Last: Yeaarrgghhhh

NewsblogAL WILD CARD GAME 2014 OMNICHATTER
(1134 - 9:41am, Oct 01)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(4084 - 8:46am, Oct 01)
Last: Bitter Mouse

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8174 - 8:01am, Oct 01)
Last: Norcan

NewsblogThe Calm-Before-The-Storm and Postseason Prediction OMNICHATTER, 2014
(111 - 7:14am, Oct 01)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Discussion
(14 - 2:17am, Oct 01)
Last: bjhanke

Page rendered in 1.5859 seconds
53 querie(s) executed