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

Saturday, February 01, 2014

OTP - Feb 2014: Politics remains a hurdle for immigration reform

Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Bitter Mouse Posted: February 01, 2014 at 04:01 PM | 3524 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

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 25 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 >  Last ›
   2401. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4663539)
Flip.

Flop.
   2402. The Good Face Posted: February 27, 2014 at 12:34 PM (#4663540)
IN other news, Crimea/Ukraine is apparently burning again, and I honestly have no ####### clue as to who might be the good guys or the bad guys in that three way ###########.


Look for whoever the IMF/NYT crowd is backing and assume they're the bad guys.
   2403. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 27, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4663545)
Look for whoever the IMF/NYT crowd is backing and assume they're the bad guys.


I'm reasonably comfortable assuming everyone are ######## until proven otherwise. My gut instinct is to go with the Euro-western half of Ukraine, just because Putin's Russia seems pretty ####### horrific. But I suspect this is going to be a lot like Bosnia where it's more of a race to the bottom for all parties.
   2404. SteveF Posted: February 27, 2014 at 12:42 PM (#4663548)
But I suspect this is going to be a lot like Bosnia where it's more of a race to the bottom for all parties.

Fortunately Europe has a long and illustrious history of nipping these conflicts in the bud without US intervention.
   2405. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 12:50 PM (#4663555)
I have come to the conclusion National Review serves an important purpose, as it is consistently a source of wrong opinions.

That's a fascinating long editorial from 1957, clearly written by William F. Buckley. The point isn't to play "gotcha" on Buckley, who later largely repudiated his earlier views on segregation, but it's still interesting to see what the most "civilized" and literate spokesman for mid-20th century conservatism was saying back before western civilization entered its long period of decline. (Which is what the 1957 version of Buckley would have said if magically transported to 2014.)

Why the South Must Prevail

The central question that emerges-and it is not
a parliamentary question or a question that is
answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the
rights of American citizens, born Equal-is whether the
White community in the South is entitled to take such
measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally,
in areas in which it does not pre-dominate numerically?
The sobering answer is Yes-the White community is so entitled
because, forthe time being, it is the advanced race.

It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing
the median cultural superiority of White over Negro;
but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be
hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropolo-
gists.

The question, as far as the White community
is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization
supersede those of universal suffrage. The British
believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya,
where the choice was dramatically one between ci-
vilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South,
where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in
Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative
differences between its culture and the Negroes',
and intends to assert its own.

NATIONAL REVIEW believes that the South's premises
are correct. If the majority wills what is socially
atavistic, then to thwart the majority may be, though
undemocratic, enlightened. It is more important for
any community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and
live by civilized standards, than to bow to the de-
mands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it be-
comes impossible to assert the will of a minority,
in which case it must give way, and the society will
regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot
prevail except by violence: then it must determine
whether the prevalence of its will is worth the ter-
rible price of violence.

The axiom on which many of the arguments sup-
porting the original version of the Civil Rights bill
were based was Universal Suffrage. Everyone in
America is entitled to the vote, period. No right is
prior to that, no obligation subordinate to it; from
this premise all else proceeds.

That, of course, is demagogy. Twenty-year-olds do
not generally have the vote, and it is not seriously
argued that the difference between 20 and 21-year-
olds is the difference between slavery and freedom.
The residents of the District of Columbia do not
vote: and the population of D.C. increases by geo-
metric proportion. Millions who have the vote do not
care to exercise it; millions who have it do not know
how to exercise it and do not care to learn. The
great majority of the Negroes of the South who do
not vote do not care to vote, and would not know
for what to vote if they could. Overwhelming num-
bers of White people in the South do not vote. Uni-
versal suffrage is not the beginning of wisdom or
the beginning of freedom. Reasonable limitations
upon the vote are not exclusively the recommenda-
tion of tyrants or oligarchists (was Jefferson either?).
The problem in the South is not how to get the vote
for the Negro, but how to equip the Negro-and a
great many Whites-to cast an enlightened and
responsible vote.

The South confronts one grave moral challenge.
It must not exploit the fact of Negro backwardness
to preserve the Negro as a servile class. It is tempting
and convenient to block the progress of a minority
whose services, as menials, are economically useful.
Let the South never permit itself to do this. So long
as it is merely asserting the right to impose superior
mores for whatever period it takes to effect a genuine
cultural equality between the races, and so long as
it does so by humane and charitable means, the South
is in step with civilization, as is the Congress that
permits it to function.
   2406. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 12:55 PM (#4663560)
but he has not been:

divisive or
lying or
vindictive or
race-baiting or
elitist

your belief that he is any of those things shows what an unthinking rightwing POS you are


See, this is what I mean. That statement is so disingenuous how would I know where to start? Are you really trying to say that Obama, a politician, has not told some pretty massive lies before and during is term in office? Really? And you don't see how jetting around the world on vacation with hordes of cronies and Secret Service agents, while almost 50 million people in your country are on ####### food stamps might be seen as elitist? And I'm the right wing POS and the crazy mofo?

And if I'm a crazy mofo for believing that gold has intrinsic value, well, that just makes me on of several billion crazy mofos in the world. Demand for gold in India and China right now is through the roof.
   2407. GregD Posted: February 27, 2014 at 12:57 PM (#4663561)
I'm sure a few people around here will faint if Hillary puts Kentucky and West Virginia in the Dems column for the first time in the 21st century, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
I will take that bet!

If you mean, is it possible that Hillary will hold Republicans to the 56% that Bush got in 2000 as opposed to the 57% that McCain got in 2008, I guess that's possible. I do think she'll do better than Obama 2012, though given the state's turn I wouldn't be shocked if she actually landed between Obama 2012 and Obama 2008.

But there ain't no way in the world Hillary will get the Republicans to spend any money to defend Kentucky.
   2408. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4663563)
Are you really trying to say that Obama, a politician, has not told some pretty massive lies before and during is term in office? Really? And you don't see how jetting around the world on vacation with hordes of cronies and Secret Service agents, while almost 50 million people in your country are on ####### food stamps might be seen as elitist?


Okay, so you've established your standard that every President is awful. We at least know where you're coming from.
   2409. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:00 PM (#4663565)
And this is a good time to remind everyone there is a strong consensus among political scientists that a person's political beliefs are set during their first election(s).


They're not set that strongly

People tend to vote the same way at 50-70 that they did at age 30
People tend to vote the same way at 30 that they did as 20- but the correlation isn't as strong- the GOP still could make inroads into the cohort born around 1990

Those born in 1988-1994 went for Obama over Romney 60-36 - it's likely that such cohort will always lean left, but it may not lean THAT much- but if it's still 60-36 Dem in 2016 the GOP is gonna have big problems going forward

Anyway
in 1988 the cohort born 1959-1970 went GOP by 53:47
the cohort born 1944-58 went GOP by 54:46
the chohort born 1929-43 went GOP by 58:42

in 2000 those born 1951-70 went GOP by 50:48

in 2004 those born 1940-54 went GOP by 52:47
those born 1955-74 went GOP by 53:46

in 2012 those born 1948-1967 went GOP by 51:47
those born before 1948 went GOP by 56:44

That rough age cohort has basically consistently voted GOP in every election from 1984-2012- it stayed GOP even as voter turnout increased among that cohort (non voting members of age cohorts tend to vote like fellow cohort members when they do vote as they get older)- that age cohort essentially elected GOP presidents in 1984/88/00/04 and drove the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994 (After essentially being a permanent minority for most of 60 years).

That cohort tended to increase as a % of the electorate over time simply because people tend to vote more often as they age- however, as a % of the electorate that cohort has started to decline (simple attrition taking over).

Otoh those born 1980-86 voted Dem 56:43 in 2004
those born after 1979 voted Dem 66:32 in 2008
those born 1983-87 voted Dem 60:38 in 2012
those born 1988-94 voted Dem 60:36 in 2012
those born 1973-82 voted Dem 55:42 in 2012

There's a definite Dem leaning cohort there-

Do cohorts ever flip? Well yes, last time was in the early 80s, the GOP/Reagan flipped what had been a Dem voting cohort to the GOP (AKA Reagan Democrats)
   2410. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4663569)
And you don't see how jetting around the world on vacation with hordes of cronies and Secret Service agents, while almost 50 million people in your country are on ####### food stamps might be seen as elitist?
So the President - any president - should not travel?
   2411. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4663570)
But there ain't no way in the world Hillary will get the Republicans to spend any money to defend Kentucky.

Since a fool and his money are soon parted, I only bet on what I think are mortal locks. But would you say the same thing about West Virginia? But you might want to remember the results of that 2008 Democratic primary (67% Hillary - 26% Obama) before you jump in with both feet on that one.
   2412. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4663571)
See, this is what I mean. That statement is so disingenuous how would I know where to start?


I was actually gonna take it back and go with crazy mofo, but why can't it be both?
Your posts, not mine, yours, are either breathtakingly disingenuous or show signs of seriously disordered thinking.
   2413. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4663574)
But you might want to remember the results of that 2008 Democratic primary (67% Hillary - 26% Obama) before you jump in with both feet on that one.


You seem to be confusing the WV Dems' preference for a Clinton they know over a black guy with a general electorate of WV's preference between Dems and Goopers.
   2414. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:11 PM (#4663575)
And you don't see how jetting around the world on vacation with hordes of cronies and Secret Service agents, while almost 50 million people in your country are on ####### food stamps might be seen as elitist?


So the President - any president - should not travel?

And when was the last time that a President went anywhere without the usual hordes of cronies and Secret Service agents? My guess might be that it was some time after the Stern Gang sent a letter bomb to President Truman, but that was 67 years ago.
   2415. The District Attorney Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:12 PM (#4663576)
Would it be okay if Obama traveled to the end of the rainbow?
   2416. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4663578)
So the President - any president - should not travel?


Why can't he hitch like the rest of us working stiffs?
   2417. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:16 PM (#4663579)
But you might want to remember the results of that 2008 Democratic primary (67% Hillary - 26% Obama) before you jump in with both feet on that one.

You seem to be confusing the WV Dems' preference for a Clinton they know over a black guy with a general electorate of WV's preference between Dems and Goopers.


Could be, but Bill Clinton beat the GOP in West Virginia by double digits in 1992 and 1996, and there's an outside chance he might be campaigning for her if she decides to run in 2016. Hillary may be an "elitist" to some people, but that's not how she comes across before crowds in Appalachia.
   2418. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4663580)
And when was the last time that a President went anywhere without the usual hordes of cronies and Secret Service agents? My guess might be that it was some time after the Stern Gang sent a letter bomb to President Truman, but that was 67 years ago.


I'm still trying to figure out how the POTUS not taking a vacation is going to result in the Congress passing a better stimulus package.
   2419. just plain joe Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4663587)
But there ain't no way in the world Hillary will get the Republicans to spend any money to defend Kentucky.


The Republicans are right now spending money to get Jowls McConnell thru the primary. Presuming he wins, they will spend considerably more trying to hold on to his Senate seat. Kentucky has a Democratic governor (Steve Beshears) who is widely popluar; presumably he would be willing to endorse & campaign for Hilary Clinton in 2016. The Democrats don't really need Kentucky's electoral votes to win in 2016 but every little bit helps and I would be surprised if the Republicans don't spend money campaigning against H. Clinton (or whoever wins the nomination).
   2420. Mefisto Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:20 PM (#4663589)
that age cohort essentially elected GOP presidents in 1984/88/00/04


I don't think you can include 2000 in that list, given the popular vote totals. Otherwise you're right.
   2421. GregD Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4663595)
Since a fool and his money are soon parted, I only bet on what I think are mortal locks. But would you say the same thing about West Virginia? But you might want to remember the results of that 2008 Democratic primary (67% Hillary - 26% Obama) before you jump in with both feet on that one.
Hell, Kerry beat that. He won 69% of the vote in West Virginia's primary! And then he held Bush to 56% of the vote, exactly the same as Obama held McCain four years later!

At West Virginia, I think that Kerry 2004/Obama 2008 number--Republicans at 56%--is a good betting line. I think I would take the over but I would have to think about it. If you took the 2000 number--Republicans at 52%--I would go over without any hesitation.

I expect WV will be a couple points closer than Kentucky, and if Republicans truly fall apart I could imagine that meaning they get West Virginia with 54% and Kentucky with 56% or something. But at this point they could beat Hillary in those states by running Herman Cain's mistress with Palin's ex-son-in-law.
   2422. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4663596)
Your posts, not mine, yours, are either breathtakingly disingenuous or show signs of seriously disordered thinking.


They aren't disingenuous, so I guess I'm disordered. A society in which pre-schoolers are routinely given psychiatric drugs for their "disordered thinking" obviously wrote the book on normal.
   2423. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:41 PM (#4663605)
Rants: Your views are as worthy of consideration as anyone else's, but the caustic sarcasm you deploy in expressing them is only harming the discussion.

Not to single you out personally; you're just the current offender in that regard. There is a real danger to the Information Age, in that it has enabled pretty near everyone in the civilized world to live in an echo chamber if they so choose--and many indeed choose to do so--and everywhere I look, on all sides of every debate, I see sneering contempt for every person who disagrees. And it seems like the more minority an opinion is, the more this is the case. Insulting their intelligence is no way to convince anyone to see your point of view.

It seems to me that over the 20 years I've been old enough to pay attention, open hostility (most often expressed in contemptuous personal belittling) between ideological opponents has been sharply increasing. I find it extremely troublesome. These kids of attitudes eventually lead to war if unchecked.
   2424. BrianBrianson Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4663610)
2008 vs. 2004 democratic shift

Yes, I think it's likely that Clinton does better in the South (especially the upper South) than Obama did. West Virginia and Arkansas are possible Clinton pickups, but probably only in a rout that makes 'em irrelevant anyhow.
   2425. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:48 PM (#4663611)
You're right Zeth, I shouldn't have been so hostile in that first missive. I just don't understand the western world anymore, at all. Not even a little bit.
   2426. PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4663615)
It is a foregone conclusion, absent something legitimately world-shaking happening between now and then, that the 2016 presidential election will be a rout in the Democrats' favor. The Democrats' main focus should and probably will be on securing as many congressional seats as possible.
   2427. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4663618)
It's not that hard, Rants. I mean, I can articulate and even give a good solid defense of your world, or Good Face's world, or even John Hagee's world. I don't agree with much of what they believe, but I feel I understand it.
   2428. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:03 PM (#4663631)
2008 vs. 2004 democratic shift


The shockers to me are Montana and Indiana. I suspect the Obama Machine organization has the most to do with them. It is not the reason he won in the general, but his campaign organization was very impressive (and the reason he won in the primary).

It's not that hard, Rants. I mean, I can articulate and even give a good solid defense of your world, or Good Face's world, or even John Hagee's world. I don't agree with much of what they believe, but I feel I understand it.


I mostly don't understand it. Occasionally a bit makes sense to me I guess. Of course I am not entirely sure how insulted I should be when I am told my opinions are "Whiggish"*. Especially as I am noting trends, but whatever.

* Note: Someone can feel free to explain this to me if they want. I know very little about the Whigs (big hole in my knowledge set perhaps). Heck I might even be flattered by the comparison. Then again I might not be explaining myself properly. Or I guess I could just be getting insulted, but it seems a bit obscure for that.
   2429. zenbitz Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4663634)
Replacement level for POTUS is extremely low.
   2430. The Good Face Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:06 PM (#4663636)
It's not that hard, Rants. I mean, I can articulate and even give a good solid defense of your world, or Good Face's world, or even John Hagee's world. I don't agree with much of what they believe, but I feel I understand it.


If you can, you sure haven't demonstrated the ability yet.
   2431. The District Attorney Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4663640)
The Republicans are right now spending money to get Jowls McConnell thru the primary.
Yes, to defend him against a credible threat from the right, which makes me think it less likely that the state is about to elect a Democrat :)

Kentucky has a Democratic governor (Steve Beshears) who is widely popluar; presumably he would be willing to endorse & campaign for Hilary Clinton in 2016.
Really only matters if it's extremely close anyway.

The swing states have been consistent for a while now, and I think the smartest bet by far is that they will remain so. I make no predictions yet about 2016. I certainly don't assume that the Republicans will continue to live in a bubble a la 2012 Romney where they remain blissfully unaware that their party's message isn't connecting. They do want to win.

Re: Presidential travel: I do think there is a lot of hay to be made by a candidate who proclaims that he/she will dispense with unnecessary travel, extravagant inaugurations, White House "parties", etc. I'm surprised no one has tried this. It dovetails especially nicely with the platform of a Rand Paul, but there's absolutely no reason why even an extreme liberal couldn't do it. I mean, it's a lot easier than actually pursuing populist policies. And honestly, given the attention most citizens pay to policy details, it would probably be even more effective at creating the image of a populist.
   2432. The Good Face Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:13 PM (#4663642)
I mostly don't understand it. Occasionally a bit makes sense to me I guess. Of course I am not entirely sure how insulted I should be when I am told my opinions are "Whiggish"*. Especially as I am noting trends, but whatever.

* Note: Someone can feel free to explain this to me if they want. I know very little about the Whigs (big hole in my knowledge set perhaps). Heck I might even be flattered by the comparison. Then again I might not be explaining myself properly. Or I guess I could just be getting insulted, but it seems a bit obscure for that.


It's not an insult.
   2433. BDC Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:15 PM (#4663644)
when was the last time that a President went anywhere without the usual hordes of cronies and Secret Service agents?

James A Garfield was shot while walking through a train station with his Secretary of State – because they had to catch a train, and how else were they supposed to do that except walk unescorted in public? This was of course 16 years after Lincoln had been shot. Of course Lincoln had been shot despite a bodyguard, so maybe Garfield thought, Que sera sera.

But then, several years later, there are stories that somebody would ring the White House bell in the middle of the night and Grover Cleveland would go down alone to open up and see who it was.
   2434. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:16 PM (#4663646)
Yes, to defend him against a threat from the right, which makes me think it less likely that the state is about to elect a Democrat :)
Wha? McConnell is rather handily ahead of his Tea Party challenger. It's the Dem, Grimes, leading him in the polls.
   2435. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:20 PM (#4663655)
Rep. Ed Pastor, a 12-term Dem from Arizona, isn't running again.

Seat remains Safe-D, as it went for Obama over Mitt by more than 45 points.
   2436. zonk Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4663656)
But then, several years later, there are stories that somebody would ring the White House bell in the middle of the night and Grover Cleveland would go down alone to open up and see who it was.


Yeah, but isn't that because Cleveland would put Kennedy and Clinton shame - combined - on the womanizing front?

I mean, if you're trying to have discreet lady callers, I'd assume you'd want to welcome them yourself.
   2437. BDC Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:25 PM (#4663659)
I do think there is a lot of hay to be made by a candidate who proclaims that he/she will dispense with unnecessary travel, extravagant inaugurations, White House "parties", etc. I'm surprised no one has tried this

The political issues here go beyond just the US, of course. The President is head of state as well as head of government, and certain displays are just mandated by international diplomatic culture. European prime ministers can go around relatively unprotected to this day, but kings and queens always have the retinue.

Of course, presidents in true parliamentary systems often have the best or worst of both worlds: no power and no glamour either. There was a President of Ireland in the '70s, an Irish speaker named Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, who used to go down to the pubs near Trinity College and have a pint with the lads after work.
   2438. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4663660)
Hell, Kerry beat that. He won 69% of the vote in West Virginia's primary! And then he held Bush to 56% of the vote, exactly the same as Obama held McCain four years later!


FWIW, the primary race was over by the time Kerry won WV in the primary. Edwards withdrew two months earlier. But I agree, KY and WV aren't really in play for and Dem nominee. MO would be the state trending red that Hillary would have a chance of flipping back. McCain only won the state by a few thousand votes.
   2439. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:34 PM (#4663670)
Thanks GF. I can see why people attribute it to me, but I don't know that it fits exactly. Personally I do have a bit of a bias in that direction I freely admit, but for purposes of this discussion I make no claims as to inevitability (or should not have at any rate). I think there has been a clear trend in the direction I have pointed out, but as to democracy being the final end point I have my strong doubts. And I certainly am not claiming there is a strict causation going on.

If anything I suspect there is a stronger causation wherein as people get more education and income they desire a bigger say in things and tend to agitate towards more democracy - whether or not democracy is optimal or is in their best interests. I think there are a couple arguments happening and they are getting comingled a bit (Note: All this assumes we can agree on definitions for the various terms, it turns out doing that is pretty hard):

* Why is democracy on an increasing trend? Why is monarchy decreasing? How do other forms figure into it?
* What is the best form of government?
* Of course built into above that is best for what? Economic growth, projection of power (including military power), happiness, internal stability, efficiency and so on. Over what time horizon? There is no reason to suppose that the best government for short term citizen happiness is the same as for medium term political stability, or long term economic gains.

My feeling is that among currently practised forms of government representative democracy is a really good mix of attributes, especially relative to the others. Because it is a good mix, has fairly good attributes for stability, economics, and citizen satisfaction that it has tended to win out over time over other forms of government with less appealing profiles (for example Monarchy and authoritarian communism).

That doesn't mean that when the AI revolution happens that they won't come up with a much better form of government. Perhaps at that point true libertarianism will flower, because the cost of contract negotiation and the informational penalties will vanish (and the age of plenty will remove the need for social compacts). No clue, but for now democracy seems like the best game in town to me.
   2440. zonk Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4663673)

I do think there is a lot of hay to be made by a candidate who proclaims that he/she will dispense with unnecessary travel, extravagant inaugurations, White House "parties", etc. I'm surprised no one has tried this


In fact, at least on the insider front -- plenty of Presidents/executives have promised the opposite.

There was a write-up in the WaPo or maybe Politico a few weeks back that Terry MacAuliffe was making friends by adding to the governor's social calendar, something was welcomed (off the record of course) even across the aisle.

It's curious to me that a lot of the same people who want government run 'more like a business' then howl just as loudly when a President/Governor does precisely what an executive does (wine and dine).
   2441. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4663675)
It's curious to me that a lot of the same people who want government run 'more like a business' then howl just as loudly when a President/Governor does precisely what an executive does (wine and dine).


And how many complaints have you read about how cold and distant Obama is and how he does not socialize enough with the GOP? It was a constant refrain for a while.
   2442. Swoboda is freedom Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4663676)
when was the last time that a President went anywhere without the usual hordes of cronies and Secret Service agents?

I was just reading about Calvin Coolidge. He hated the trappings of the Presidency and was the leader of the less is more school of governing. He didn't do much. But he just took his summer vacation and there were dozens of people travelling with him, plus all the press.

Not a new trend.
   2443. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:52 PM (#4663686)
IN other news, Crimea/Ukraine is apparently burning again, and I honestly have no ####### clue as to who might be the good guys or the bad guys in that three way ###########.


It's easy. The people of western Ukraine who want to ally with Europe are the good guys, the corrupt Russians who want to interfere with that process, and keep Ukraine tethered to their awful society, are the bad guys.

Don't overthink it (*). The European societies and the EU are superior states and societies to Russia.

(*) And especially don't overthink it and come up with the wrong answer.
   2444. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 02:58 PM (#4663691)
I do think there is a lot of hay to be made by a candidate who proclaims that he/she will dispense with unnecessary travel, extravagant inaugurations, White House "parties", etc. I'm surprised no one has tried this


Really??? I don't think its a top ten concern for more than 1% of 1% of the population, and you have a great chance you will upset donors, who are more important now than ever (because of "free speech!") So the trade off looks terrible IMO.

It's curious to me that a lot of the same people who want government run 'more like a business' then howl just as loudly when a President/Governor does precisely what an executive does (wine and dine).


And how many complaints have you read about how cold and distant Obama is and how he does not socialize enough with the GOP? It was a constant refrain for a while.


Isn't this a big reason why people say Jimmy Carter failed? Because he didn't schmooze with Congressional leaders and party leaders the way Reagan did?
   2445. The District Attorney Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4663694)
Wha? McConnell is rather handily ahead of his Tea Party challenger. It's the Dem, Grimes, leading him in the polls.
Smaller point is that we'll see if that's still the case when the people who would rather vote for the Tea Partier are deprived of that option -- remember how the "PUMA" movement fizzled out.

Larger point is that he did say "spending money to get Jowls McConnell thru the primary", citing that (AFAICT) as evidence that McConnell would be weak against Grimes, rather than the direct McConnell vs. Grimes polling that you cite (and that I agree is a lot more relevant).

Really??? I don't think its a top ten concern for more than 1% of 1% of the population, and you have a great chance you will upset donors, who are more important now than ever (because of "free speech!") So the trade off looks terrible IMO.
Well, it's not a "concern" in the sense that if you ask people "what are the most important issues in politics right now?", they're going to say jobs, education, etc., not "extravagant inaugurations." But at the same time, I do think that the argument Rants made about "how can they spend so much money unnecessarily when so many live in squalor?" is an argument that resonates with a whole lot of people. It's obviously symbolism... I think even the densest person understands that we don't spend so much money on presidential pomp that we could otherwise solve poverty... but symbolism very often makes more of an impression on people than logic.

It'd be a helluva positive publicity gimmick, is basically what I'm getting at.
   2446. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:05 PM (#4663697)
Ah. Missed that.
   2447. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4663698)
I honestly have no ####### clue as to who might be the good guys or the bad guys in that three way ###########.


Why do we need good guys and bad guys in this? I suspect that all the parties are acting in perceived self interest and that none of the players are purely good (and I doubt any are pure evil, but that is more possible).

The real questions to ask are:
* What do we want the outcome to be?
* Can we influence that outcome in any meaningful way?
* What is the cost of that influence going to be, versus the likelihood of gaining any benefit from the influence versus doing other things (including doing nothing)?

Sure it is cold blooded, but sometimes there is no positive action to take, even for a superpower. You just let it play out and hope for the best (or take minimal behind the scenes actions and get accused of doing nothing or accused of doing things you are not involved in).
   2448. BDC Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:20 PM (#4663710)
Complaints about the imperial Presidency are indeed mostly mote-and-beam stuff. Nobody goes in for them too seriously because payback time is usually less than eight years away :)

On the topic of Grover Cleveland's sex life, I strongly recommend a book called A Secret Life, by Charles Lachman. The facts are far weirder than you can imagine.
   2449. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:28 PM (#4663713)
2008 vs. 2004 democratic shift

Yes, I think it's likely that Clinton does better in the South (especially the upper South) than Obama did. West Virginia and Arkansas are possible Clinton pickups, but probably only in a rout that makes 'em irrelevant anyhow.
i'd love to see a population adjusted version of that graphic.
I'm sure a few people around here will faint if Hillary puts Kentucky and West Virginia in the Dems column for the first time in the 21st century, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.
I will take that bet!

If you mean, is it possible that Hillary will hold Republicans to the 56% that Bush got in 2000 as opposed to the 57% that McCain got in 2008, I guess that's possible. I do think she'll do better than Obama 2012, though given the state's turn I wouldn't be shocked if she actually landed between Obama 2012 and Obama 2008.

But there ain't no way in the world Hillary will get the Republicans to spend any money to defend Kentucky.
i think people are forgetting, or at least underappreciating that 'all politics are local'. obamacare has been a big success in kentucky, so i think it's possible that they'll see the republicans' "obamacare is the root of evil" platform as being completely disconnected from the reality they see up close. "repeal obamacare" is an effective slogan nationwide, but if it means that a couple hundred thousand kentuckyanans lose the health insurance they got because of obamacare, that will flip the scales in that state.

likewise, with west virginia, how many people still can't drink their water because of that chemical tank leak? deregulation sounds good as a slogan, but when it results in undrinkable tap water, it becomes kind of a harder sell.

   2450. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:33 PM (#4663718)
The point isn't to play "gotcha" on Buckley, who later largely repudiated his earlier views on segregation, but it's still interesting to see what the most "civilized" and literate spokesman for mid-20th century conservatism was saying back before western civilization entered its long period of decline. (Which is what the 1957 version of Buckley would have said if magically transported to 2014.)

The country improved dramatically between 1957 and roughly 1979, before beginning its steady decline.

Buckley would almost certainly have a different idea -- he'd see decline between 1957 and 1979 -- so your point, as usual, is muddled and/or impossible to discern.
   2451. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:37 PM (#4663721)
i think people are forgetting, or at least underappreciating that 'all politics are local'. obamacare has been a big success in kentucky, so i think it's possible that they'll see the republicans' "obamacare is the root of evil" platform as being completely disconnected from the reality they see up close. "repeal obamacare" is an effective slogan nationwide, but if it means that a couple hundred thousand kentuckyanans lose the health insurance they got because of obamacare, that will flip the scales in that state.


There is a ton of cognitive dissonance on this issue though. 49% of Kentuckians still want a repeal. My wife was just recounting how a patient was talking about how marvelous it was that her insurance premiums were lower and she was getting more coverage. But the patient still wanted Obamacare repealed!
   2452. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:40 PM (#4663724)
They aren't disingenuous, so I guess I'm disordered. A society in which pre-schoolers are routinely given psychiatric drugs for their "disordered thinking" obviously wrote the book on normal.


Ok I retract my POS comment.
   2453. BDC Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4663727)
The country improved dramatically between 1957 and roughly 1979, before beginning its steady decline

Hey, that's roughly the years when I was born and when I stopped smoking weed.
   2454. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:52 PM (#4663729)
It's easy. The people of western Ukraine who want to ally with Europe are the good guys, the corrupt Russians who want to interfere with that process, and keep Ukraine tethered to their awful society, are the bad guys.

Don't overthink it (*). The European societies and the EU are superior states and societies to Russia.


I have no trouble assigning a black hat to Putin and those in Russia- but at the risk of "overthinking" a problem with Ukraine is quite frankly the ethnicity issue, nearly half of Ukrainians speak Russian IN THEIR HOMES, and as we've seen in the past, ethnic tensions were never resolved during the Soviet Era, merely repressed by force.

Ukraine to date has avoided the all out civil war style bloodshed that occurred in the former Yugoslavia and several former SSRs, but it seems to be teetering-

there seems to be 2 options, 1 country or 2

If it breaks in 2, there are 2 paths, the Czechoslovakian path or the Yugoslavian path

If it doesn't break in 2? I'm not sure there's a clear path to continued unification of Ukraine, unless the Russians (Russia's Russians, not Ukraine's Russians) are gonna keep it together by force (and Putin is many bad things, but I don't think he wants to reignite* the Cold War.)

*Re-freeze? Re-Ice?
   2455. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4663731)
The point isn't to play "gotcha" on Buckley, who later largely repudiated his earlier views on segregation, but it's still interesting to see what the most "civilized" and literate spokesman for mid-20th century conservatism was saying back before western civilization entered its long period of decline. (Which is what the 1957 version of Buckley would have said if magically transported to 2014.)

The country improved dramatically between 1957 and roughly 1979, before beginning its steady decline.


I see that our resident Spengler is back for a return engagement. Only you could ever see dramatic improvement in the Nixon and Carter years, but hey, that's what you do, and nobody's ever going to remove that bee from your bonnet.

   2456. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 03:58 PM (#4663732)
The ethnic Russians in the east and Crimea are also better off with closer ties to Europe. I'd agree that there might not be a way to get Russian buy-in to the current territory of Ukraine allied with the EU -- that's what they ####-disturbed last fall when it was about to happen, because Russia -- but that's clearly the best solution.
   2457. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4663734)
Only you could ever see dramatic improvement in the Nixon and Carter years, but hey, that's what you do, and nobody's ever going to remove that bee from your bonnet.

America in 1979 wasn't better than the sick, virulantly racist country of 1957? You're kidding, right?
   2458. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:05 PM (#4663737)
America in 1979 wasn't better than the sick, virulantly racist country of 1957? You're kidding, right?


I know I have asked this before, but other than the unicorn of social trust, any metrics that show improvement from '57 to '79 and then decrease from '79 to '14? I have plenty that show increases in both time frames.
   2459. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:17 PM (#4663742)
I know I have asked this before, but other than the unicorn of social trust, any metrics that show improvement from '57 to '79 and then decrease from '79 to '14? I have plenty that show increases in both time frames.

And it was answered before. The primary ones are the various species of nuttery -- religious, gun, economic. Others would include commitment to militarism and war, and commitment to freedom and privacy. Others have been discussed previously, such as quality and resiliency of institutions.
   2460. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4663744)
#2452 - Thanks.
   2461. The Good Face Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4663748)
I know I have asked this before, but other than the unicorn of social trust,


You may not consider it important (pretty much every political scientist and economist disagrees with you, but whatever), but the evidence showing declining social trust in America is overwhelming and has been linked to multiple times. We ain't chasing unicorns here. People don't trust the government, the private sector, or one another as much as they used to.
   2462. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4663750)
The ethnic Russians in the east and Crimea are also better off with closer ties to Europe.

Good luck convincing them of that, they see themselves as an oppressed minority in the land they used to control... kind of like how many Teapers see themselves :-).

If the Ukraine had split in 2, 20 years ago, it's not impossible that both halves may have aligned themselves with the West over time - not happening now, the ethnic Russians see themselves getting the shaft if they don't get help from "mother" Russia
   2463. BDC Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:24 PM (#4663751)
any metrics that show improvement from '57 to '79 and then decrease from '79 to '14?

My cousin Doug's hairline.
   2464. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:35 PM (#4663758)
GOP announced their eight finalists for the 2016 convention site. I'd rank the liklihood as:

1. Las Vegas
2. Columbus
3. Kansas City
4. Dallas
5. Cleveland
6. Phoenix
7. Denver
8. Cincinnati
   2465. Morty Causa Posted: February 27, 2014 at 04:47 PM (#4663762)
Okay, brain, I don't like you, and you don't like me....

For reference, when the subject of IQ comes up again.
   2466. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:00 PM (#4663770)
. . . Bill Clinton beat the GOP in West Virginia by double digits in 1992 and 1996, and there's an outside chance he might be campaigning for her if she decides to run in 2016. Hillary may be an "elitist" to some people, but that's not how she comes across before crowds in Appalachia.

This is foolish -- although not as foolish as the folks declaring the 2016 Presidential Election to already be in the Democratic column. West Virginia has gone Republican in 4 consecutive Presidential elections -- Romney won with 62% of the vote. Most observers have already assigned the 2014 Senate seat Jay Rockefeller is vacating to the GOP. This isn't the West Virginia that even Michael Dukakis was able to carry as a Democratic candidate, or even the W. VA. that Al Gore narrowly lost. If the Democrats carry W. VA in 2016, or even come close, it'd have to be a landslide election, which is not a likely outcome at this point.
   2467. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:01 PM (#4663771)
For reference, when the subject of IQ comes up again.


FTA:

The Flynn effect got the Malcolm Gladwell treatment in a 2007 New Yorker piece following the publication of Flynn’s What Is Intelligence? “An I.Q., in other words, measures not so much how smart we are as how modern we are,” Gladwell wrote. “This is a critical distinction.”


Let's take that distinction as given and note that the most vocal proponents of IQ as gold standard in this forum are generally the same people who argue for pre-modernism over modernism (i.e. the guys aghast at "modern liberalism.") This seems to be a disconnect in their thinking.
   2468. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:08 PM (#4663778)
. . . the ethnic Russians see themselves getting the shaft if they don't get help from "mother" Russia.

I don't think that is set in stone yet, and it's worth remembering that not all the Russian speakers in Ukraine are pro-Russian. The ethnic Tatars most certainly are not. Ukraine still has a chance to have a democratic, western-oriented future.
   2469. The Good Face Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:17 PM (#4663783)
Let's take that distinction as given and note that the most vocal proponents of IQ as gold standard in this forum are generally the same people who argue for pre-modernism over modernism (i.e. the guys aghast at "modern liberalism.") This seems to be a disconnect in their thinking.


Nah. What matters are the variations between IQ. The fact that the baseline was different in the times of the legends of the days of yore isn't particularly important. Besides, it's not like Flynn's explanation is gospel; nobody REALLY knows for sure what causes it. Furthermore, the Flynn effect is showing signs of stopping, or even reversing. There's been some discussion that modern civilization may be inherently, mildly dsygenic.
   2470. Publius Publicola Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:27 PM (#4663786)
Face, can you define dysgenia please? (this ought to be entertaining)
   2471. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:28 PM (#4663787)
Nah. What matters are the variations between IQ.


You're not even gonna consider the possibility that the Flynn effect or something like it, not only causes the variation between today's IQs scores and those from 100 years ago, but also is what causes variation among groups today in IQ testing, are you?
   2472. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:28 PM (#4663788)
Besides, it's not like Flynn's explanation is gospel; nobody REALLY knows for sure what causes it.


Apparently IQ measurement is an exact science until it's not.
   2473. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:29 PM (#4663790)
Facecan you define dysgenia please? (this ought to be entertaining


Marching Morons,
Idiocracy...

To be honest, its not out of the realm of possibility that is happening in some modern societies
   2474. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:33 PM (#4663793)
I don't think that is set in stone yet, and it's worth remembering that not all the Russian speakers in Ukraine are pro-Russian. The ethnic Tatars most certainly are not.


No but probably a majority of the Russian speakers do, and that majority is better organized and funded.

German Jews in the Sudetenland didn't want to reunite with "father" Germany, but they had as much say in the matter as I fear the Taters will in Ukraine. (BTW, no I don't think Putin is as bad as Hitler- or Putin's idol Stalin, for that matter)
   2475. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:46 PM (#4663797)
how "democratic" is your name?

fun fact:
galen is in the 97th percentile for being registered as a republican
but gaelen is in the 83rd percentile for being registered as a democrat
   2476. Publius Publicola Posted: February 27, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4663800)
To be honest, its not out of the realm of possibility that is happening in some modern societies


Not out of the realm that what is happening?
   2477. The District Attorney Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:01 PM (#4663805)
I definitely don't deny that the "bowling alone" stuff is pretty much true. Society is being divided into "interest groups" that are both smaller, and defined differently, along lines that have more to do with abstractions (morals, life experiences, etc.) than concrete things (race, location, etc.) It's less likely that you go to the same church as someone else, that you listen to the same bands they do, that you watched the same TV show last night they did.

Does that mean "society is worse"? It should be pretty obvious that the answer to that is 100% dependent on what you think is "good" for society. My (probably uselessly tautological) definition is that if it's what people want, then yeah, it's good. Since no one is forcing people with respect to their churchgoing/music listening/etc., apparently the decisions that they're freely making are the decisions that make their lives better. And IMO, the purpose of society is to facilitate peoples' ability to make their lives better.

It's kind of like what Bill James said about baseball economics: If people spend more money on sports than they do on cancer research, then apparently they care more about sports than they do about cancer research. And if they use technology to express their individuality and form new communities, rather than using it to reinforce the existing communities, then apparently they care more about their individuality and potential new communities than they do about the existing communities.

IQ tests are nonsense, and I think it was also James who said that "intelligence quotient" is as useful as having a "beauty quotient" to express how attractive a person is.

how "democratic" is your name?
I can believe "Cletus" is split right down the middle, but I can't believe he's only 53.7% likely to have a gun!
   2478. The Good Face Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:06 PM (#4663807)
Besides, it's not like Flynn's explanation is gospel; nobody REALLY knows for sure what causes it.


Apparently IQ measurement is an exact science until it's not.


The next time you find me saying IQ measurement is an exact science will be the first time. IQ is a fairly crude tool and there's much about it that we don't understand perfectly. But it's a useful tool because it works.

You're not even gonna consider the possibility that the Flynn effect or something like it, not only causes the variation between today's IQs scores and those from 100 years ago, but also is what causes variation among groups today in IQ testing, are you?


If nobody knows what it is, how can we consider whether it's responsible for a given set of effects?
   2479. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:08 PM (#4663810)
IQ tests are nonsense, and I think it was also James who said that "intelligence quotient" is as useful as having a "beauty quotient" to express how attractive a person is.


Keep in mind that you're talking to a guy who believes intrinsically in "sexual market value."
   2480. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:11 PM (#4663812)
Only you could ever see dramatic improvement in the Nixon and Carter years, but hey, that's what you do, and nobody's ever going to remove that bee from your bonnet.

America in 1979 wasn't better than the sick, virulantly racist country of 1957? You're kidding, right?


I'll be kind and assume that your misinterpretation of what I wrote was my fault, but just to state the obvious, there were plenty of years between those two endpoints, and many ways to measure improvement and / or decline.

Obviously in the Big Picture we were better off in 1979 than in 1957, but that's because of the progress that had begun in 1933 and continued more or less unabated up through the years right before Vietnam and the urban riots. The sense that things were off beam began in the mid-to-late 60's, and continued almost uninterrupted through Watergate, the two oil supply panics**, "malaise" and stagflation. This sense of "we're on the wrong track" didn't begin with Ronald Reagan's presidency, much as for political reasons I'd like to pin it on The Gipper.

And since then, the sense of "things are getting better" or "things are getting worse" has gone back and forth in cycles, and the "real" answer depends of what part of the elephant you're holding. The idea that we can cram every piece of progress and regression and come up with any definite declaration of "progress" or "decline" is wholly dependent on how you define those terms.

**Which for those too young to remember these panics firsthand, took place in 1973/74 and 1979.

   2481. The Good Face Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:22 PM (#4663821)
Keep in mind that you're talking to a guy who believes intrinsically in "sexual market value."


I can't believe you're still tripling down on this silliness. Some folks are more attractive than others for a variety of reasons. Most folks manage to deal with that reality, but apparently Sam's still in denial.
   2482. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:25 PM (#4663822)
Just for fun, I googled for 2016 polls for West Virginia, and the only one I could find (September 2013) showed Hillary trailing all five possible GOP candidates** by anywhere from 9 (Christie) to 14 (Bush) points, with one exception: Cruz only leads her by 4 points. Xenophobia or anti-Wacko Birdism?

**Bush, Christie (pre-Bridgegate), Cruz, Paul and Ryan
   2483. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:52 PM (#4663829)
I can't believe you're still tripling down on this silliness. Some folks are more attractive than others for a variety of reasons. Most folks manage to deal with that reality,


And then there's folks like you, who seem to think its quantifiable. Unless someone asks you to do so, at which point it's totally so obvious you'd never have to explain it.
   2484. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:54 PM (#4663831)
Just for fun, I googled for 2016 polls for West Virginia, and the only one I could find (September 2013) showed Hillary trailing all five possible GOP candidates** by anywhere from 9 (Christie) to 14 (Bush) points, with one exception: Cruz only leads her by 4 points. Xenophobia or anti-Wacko Birdism?


2013 was the height of Cruz's national profile as the leader of the "maybe we should do something about immigration" caucus within the GOP. One suspects that if they repolled that today, he'd be up closer to double digits now as well, as the voters will likely have forgotten that one time he suggested Mexicans didn't use white babies to make their mahtzah ball soup.
   2485. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 06:55 PM (#4663832)
Obviously in the Big Picture we were better off in 1979 than in 1957, but that's because of the progress that had begun in 1933 and continued more or less unabated up through the years right before Vietnam and the urban riots. The sense that things were off beam began in the mid-to-late 60's, and continued almost uninterrupted through Watergate, the two oil supply panics**, "malaise" and stagflation. This sense of "we're on the wrong track" didn't begin with Ronald Reagan's presidency, much as for political reasons I'd like to pin it on The Gipper.


And we had progressed from 1967 to 1979 as our participatory and other institutions dealt robustly with Vietnam and Watergate, continuing us on an upward slope.

Until that upward, progressive slope was stopped and reversed by the infusion of religious, gun, and economic nuttery and the other factors noted herein that have marked the post-peak age -- still very much with us, with little end in sight.

sense of "we're on the wrong track" didn't begin with Ronald Reagan's presidency, much as for political reasons I'd like to pin it on The Gipper.

And since then, the sense of "things are getting better" or "things are getting worse" has gone back and forth in cycles,


You're talking merely about mass polling data. The analysis and commentary herein is plainly richer and deeper.
   2486. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 07:12 PM (#4663840)
Obviously in the Big Picture we were better off in 1979 than in 1957, but that's because of the progress that had begun in 1933 and continued more or less unabated up through the years right before Vietnam and the urban riots. The sense that things were off beam began in the mid-to-late 60's, and continued almost uninterrupted through Watergate, the two oil supply panics**, "malaise" and stagflation. This sense of "we're on the wrong track" didn't begin with Ronald Reagan's presidency, much as for political reasons I'd like to pin it on The Gipper.

And we had progressed from 1967 to 1979 as our participatory and other institutions dealt robustly with Vietnam and Watergate, continuing us on an upward slope.


WTF are even you talking about? What "upward slope"? Congress "dealt robustly" with Watergate only after the press had forced their hand, and the NVA was what dealt "robustly" with Vietnam, leaving us with the long-lamented "Vietnam syndrome" that defense hawks were lamenting for years to come.

The sense of "we're on the wrong track" didn't begin with Ronald Reagan's presidency, much as for political reasons I'd like to pin it on The Gipper.

And since then, the sense of "things are getting better" or "things are getting worse" has gone back and forth in cycles,


You're talking here merely about mass polling data. The analysis and commentary herein is plainly richer and deeper.


Clearly "plainly richer and deeper" is in the eyes of its creator, but all I'm seeing is an attempt to throw a lot of assertions together, and assign them an arbitrary date in the hope that it all adds up to some grand thesis. I guess we should be grateful that at least you haven't gone completely bonkers and blamed your three nutterys (gun, religious and economic) on Modern Liberals, but I'm sure you'll get around to that next.
   2487. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 27, 2014 at 07:14 PM (#4663843)
WTF are even you talking about? What "upward slope"?

The upward trajectory of the country between 1967 and 1979. What else? The country was a better place in 1979 than it was in 1967.
   2488. zenbitz Posted: February 27, 2014 at 07:30 PM (#4663848)
People don't trust the government, the private sector, or one another as much as they used to.



Maybe they got smarter. Or their IQ increased.
   2489. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: February 27, 2014 at 08:22 PM (#4663862)
Party identification for some common names (D%):

Milky: 69.5
Mazda: 73.1
Car: 57.0
Chuckles: 45.9
Iron: 70.5
Hog: 41.0
Bop: 44.9
   2490. OCF Posted: February 27, 2014 at 08:25 PM (#4663864)
Turns out I have an extremely Republican name.

Unrelated to me:

"Mark" leans R. "Marc" leans D. (And I think you can guess about "Marcus" and "Marco.")

(Just so you can find it: the link is in #2475.)
   2491. bobm Posted: February 27, 2014 at 08:59 PM (#4663874)
, but I don't think he wants to reignite* the Cold War.)

*Re-freeze? Re-Ice?


Congeal :-)
   2492. tshipman Posted: February 27, 2014 at 09:57 PM (#4663893)
Low hanging fruit, but it turns out Jesus is a Democrat--73.8%

I was surprised to see that Jesus was under the 50% line for attend church weekly. Maybe they didn't count preaching among the people as attending church?
   2493. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 10:35 PM (#4663898)
WTF are even you talking about? What "upward slope"?

The upward trajectory of the country between 1967 and 1979. What else? The country was a better place in 1979 than it was in 1967.


In what way, and by what measure? I suppose that the absence of the Vietnam war might be an improvement, but then you'd have to say we really went to Hell between 1946 and 1953, and between 1965 and 1971.
   2494. clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right Posted: February 27, 2014 at 10:44 PM (#4663902)
And we had progressed from 1967 to 1979 as our participatory and other institutions dealt robustly with Vietnam and Watergate, continuing us on an upward slope.
this is an absolutely ridiculous conversation, and to illustrate that, i'm going to videoconference with my australian cousins in real time and then upload a recording of the conversation to facebook, so it can be seen by all of my other relatives, using only my phone, which literally fits in the palm of my hand.

   2495. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 11:09 PM (#4663907)
If anyone doubts that baby names can backfire, only 31.5% of people named "Pious" attended religious services weekly, only 30.1% of girls named "Magdalene", 30% of people named "God", and only 27.3% of people named "Holy"----as opposed to 41.1% of people named Lucifer, and 47.8% of those named "Judas". (And "Judas" is more religious than either "Jesus" or "Christ.") All this kind of reinforces my faith in humanity.

Beware of giving your child a dog's name, since 56.3% of "Fido"s are packing heat, almost exactly the percentage of pistol packers named "Notorious", but over 12% more than those named "Bogart".

And of all the names I've looked up, the most religious one so far is----Snapper, at a whopping 55.8%.
   2496. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 27, 2014 at 11:12 PM (#4663908)
this is an absolutely ridiculous conversation, and to illustrate that, i'm going to videoconference with my australian cousins in real time and then upload a recording of the conversation to facebook, so it can be seen by all of my other relatives, using only my phone, which literally fits in the palm of my hand.

I just want to know if the palm of your hand is big enough to hold Sugar Bear's robust boner when he starts daydreaming about Vietnam.
   2497. Howie Menckel Posted: February 27, 2014 at 11:30 PM (#4663916)

caught the end of Hannity tonight, alas.

a supposed Greenpeace co-founder is not all-in on human-caused climate change, he seemed to be saying. Sean was giddy.

time for both sides to RELEASE THE HOUNDS

   2498. GregD Posted: February 27, 2014 at 11:38 PM (#4663920)
caught the end of Hannity tonight, alas.

a supposed Greenpeace co-founder is not all-in on human-caused climate change, he seemed to be saying. Sean was giddy.
Presumably Patrick Moore, who has been distant for decades and who does PR for various industry groups. He's been giving speeches against the idea of human-caused climate change for many years.
   2499. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 27, 2014 at 11:40 PM (#4663921)
The upward trajectory of the country between 1967 and 1979. What else? The country was a better place in 1979 than it was in 1967.


So I will ask again. Do you have any metrics to show something that peaked in 1979 and then declined. Anything?

Last time I asked I got this gem:
The primary ones are the various species of nuttery -- religious, gun, economic. Others would include commitment to militarism and war, and commitment to freedom and privacy. Others have been discussed previously, such as quality and resiliency of institutions.


Oh look not a metric in the paragraph. Not a number. Nothing quantifiable. Just a bunch of assertions. And questionable ones at that, commitment to war is not exactly a sign of healthy vigorous society here in the modern world.

I have actual numbers - income, life expectancy, violent crime and so on that have gotten measurably better. You have assertions.
   2500. Lassus Posted: February 28, 2014 at 12:01 AM (#4663930)
a supposed Greenpeace co-founder is not all-in on human-caused climate change, he seemed to be saying.


A CLEARLY MEANDERING MESSAGE!
Page 25 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Vegas Watch
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogHurdles remain in Mets-Rockies deal for Tulowitzki, Gonzalez
(2 - 4:30pm, Jul 25)
Last: Willie Mayspedes

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(930 - 4:29pm, Jul 25)
Last: clowns to the left of me; STEAGLES to the right

Newsblog5 for Friday: Leo Mazzone, pitching coach to the HOFers
(22 - 4:27pm, Jul 25)
Last: Brian

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread July, 2014
(405 - 4:19pm, Jul 25)
Last: Darkness and the howling fantods

NewsblogOTP - July 2014: Republicans Lose To Democrats For Sixth Straight Year In Congressional Baseball Game
(3161 - 4:16pm, Jul 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

SABR - BBTF ChapterWho's going to SABR??
(96 - 4:03pm, Jul 25)
Last: Mike Webber

NewsblogCSN: Enough is enough — time to move on from Ryan Howard
(108 - 3:58pm, Jul 25)
Last: AROM

NewsblogNoble: Tom Seaver expects Derek Jeter to become first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee
(84 - 3:55pm, Jul 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogLa Russa: Asterisk for tainted stars
(17 - 3:46pm, Jul 25)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogThe Inventor of the High Five
(28 - 3:45pm, Jul 25)
Last: winnipegwhip

Newsblog7-25-14 OMNICHATTER
(1 - 2:57pm, Jul 25)
Last: boteman is not here 'til October

NewsblogRick Cerone: “Robinson Cano . . . what a fool!”
(259 - 2:56pm, Jul 25)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogSurprising Sports Stars – Guided by Voices’ Robert Pollard
(15 - 2:35pm, Jul 25)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogGoldman: Eliminating the shift a bandage for a phantom wound
(39 - 2:02pm, Jul 25)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 7-25-2014
(6 - 1:38pm, Jul 25)
Last: Moeball

Page rendered in 1.0609 seconds
53 querie(s) executed