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

Wednesday, March 05, 2014

OTP - March 2014: Russia denies calling shots in Ukraine’s Crimea standoff

Only Babe Ruth calls shots!

At a press conference for Kremlin-controlled media on Tuesday, Putin reiterated his position that Moscow has the right to use “all means” necessary to protect ethnic Russians and vital military assets in Ukraine, first among them the Black Sea fleet in the Crimean port of Sevastopol.

 

Bitter Mouse Posted: March 05, 2014 at 08:54 AM | 3254 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: lies, politics, war

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 30 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 > 
   2901. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4676869)
Also notable about that McConnell ad, it starts with a sop about income inequality, and then pivots to detail the myriad ways in which McConnell will lead the Republicans to make sure no one ever addresses income inequality in any meaningful way.
   2902. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 03:45 PM (#4676871)
Is his campaign really that stupid?


It is a dumb but minor bit that won't mean much, unless of course it reinforces the existing narrative around him. I am not an expert on that race, so I am not sure if it does or not.
   2903. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 25, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4676876)
WTF are you talking about? I distinctly remember the way our soldiers were greeted as liberators in Iraq.


They did get that great photo-op of the statue of Saddam being toppled. If you cropped it just right it looked like a joyous crowd of grateful natives celebrating.
   2904. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4676878)
it reinforces the existing narrative around him.

The narrative seems to be he's too old and out of touch, so I think it does exactly that - to a degree of course. It's just bafflingly stupid more than anything of consequence, I agree.
   2905. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:15 PM (#4676895)
Not to mention that this entire "angry at Nate Silver" bit is complete BS to begin with. Here's the latest of about a dozen similar e-mails I've gotten since his Senate prediction was released.

It's not the fundraising e-mails, but rather the statement by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that suggests they are irked by Silver's "unhelpful" forecast:
Democrats aren't taking Nate Silver's latest Senate prediction lying down. In an unusual step, the executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Monday issued a rebuttal the famed statistician's prediction—made a day earlier—that Republicans were a "slight favorite" to retake the Senate. Silver was wrong in 2012, the political committee's Guy Cecil wrote in a memo, and he'll be wrong again in 2014.
. . .
But in the memo, Cecil argues that Silver's track record is less than stellar. It cites four races in which Democrats won despite Silver once predicting otherwise: Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and John Tester in Montana in 2012, and Harry Reid in Nevada and Michael Bennet in Colorado in 2010.

Not a huge deal, campaign committees seldom publicly agree with unfavorable predictions, but Silver has already responded, noting the hypocrisy of the DSSC questioning the accuracy (and track record) of his predictions, while using those same predictions to fundraise off their dire 2014 plight.
   2906. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:36 PM (#4676912)
According to a World Health Organization report released today, around 1 in 8 of total global deaths - 7 million deaths annually - are as a result of exposure to air pollution.

The new data challenges previous information on air pollution. The figure of 7 million more than doubles the previous estimate of annual air pollution-caused deaths, making air pollution now the world's largest single environmental health risk.


That doesn't pass the smell test. Heart disease and strokes are caused by air pollution?

WHO estimate that 4.3 million global deaths were linked to cooking over coal, wood and biomass stoves.


Yep, now they are just making stuff up now.

   2907. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:40 PM (#4676913)
If a joke, #2906 is funny, what with the "Smell test" bit. If not then well, science.
   2908. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4676916)
I don't think air pollution is the chief cause of heart disease or strokes.

Science, you know.
   2909. zenbitz Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:45 PM (#4676917)
That doesn't pass the smell test. Heart disease and strokes are caused by air pollution?


IIRC tobacco smokers have a higher incidence of heart disease and stroke. So it's not totally insane. I have no idea if it's true or not, but I wouldn't reject it out of hand.

WHO estimate that 4.3 million global deaths were linked to cooking over coal, wood and biomass stoves.


This obviously is just cheating by saying "linked to big number" when it literally means "partially contributed to some small fraction of big number". I mean, I guess you can statisticalyl argue that if cooking over a CWBM stove increases your likelyhood of dying from Heart Disease and Stroke by 10% (or I guess more properly reduces your life expectancy by some number of days). Lots of people die of heart disease and stroke, so a small increase can be "linked to" lots of deaths.

I am not sure what the proposed solution is. Eat raw food? Freeze to death?
   2910. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4676920)
Another data point about the 2014 election climate. For the first time, Alaska Democratic Senator Nick Begich is trailing in a poll, although he has long been under the 50% level that is somewhat indicative of a "safe" incumbent.
   2911. Howie Menckel Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:49 PM (#4676921)


"Dems are mad at the guy they used to love" angle. Good ol' Howie - he sure went native in a hurry."

.................

Well, "Howie" is the guy who posted the info. "Howard" is the guy who wrote the article that is quoted.

I assume you meant "Good old Howard."


   2912. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:50 PM (#4676922)
I don't think air pollution is the chief cause of heart disease or strokes.


Primary is doing a whole bunch of work here. Look if you think air pollution does not contribute to heart disease or stroke then you can say that, but don't misstate what WHO is saying.
   2913. The Good Face Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:52 PM (#4676924)
I am not sure what the proposed solution is. Eat raw food? Freeze to death?


Don't give these people ideas.
   2914. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:54 PM (#4676927)
I assume you meant "Good old Howard."

Mea culpa. Mr. Kurtz is often referred to with the same appellation, in my limited defense.
   2915. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:55 PM (#4676928)
I assume you meant "Good old Howard."


Crazy ####### duck.
   2916. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:58 PM (#4676930)
I am not sure what the proposed solution is. Eat raw food? Freeze to death?


Pollution is a bit like radioactivity, from what I can tell. No matter what you are going to get hit with some, but every bit is bad and you want to limit exposure to it as much as is possible.

The alternatives to cooking with coal are fairly obvious, but no one is suggesting if you cook one meal over coal you will die, and that it is better to eat food raw.

In a world with billions of people, anything that increases mortality will rack up large numbers. As it turns out there is enough air pollution and it is currently thought (by people who study that sort of thing, as opposed to internet naysayers) to be harmful enough that it is a bad deal and causes millions of deaths.
   2917. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 04:59 PM (#4676932)
I don't think air pollution is the chief cause of heart disease or strokes.

Science, you know.


The WHO claim is based on observed data. What is the basis of your dismissal?

New data 'more accurate' than previous estimates

WHO claim that the new figures are more accurate than previous estimates, because not only is more now known about the diseases influenced by air pollution, but also improved technology allows for better measurements of human exposure to air pollution.

This new approach combined satellite data, ground-level monitoring measurements, data on pollution emissions and modeling of how pollution drifts in the air.

The study found that the countries with the most air pollution were the low- and middle-income countries in the southeast Asia and western Pacific regions. A total of 3.3 million deaths were linked to indoor air pollution in these countries, and 2.6 million deaths were related to outdoor air pollution.

   2918. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:06 PM (#4676936)
I'm not misstating what WHO is saying at all.


"The risks from air pollution are now far greater than previously thought or understood, particularly for heart disease and strokes," says Dr. Maria Neira, director of the World Heath Organization's (WHO) Department for Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health.


It's OK though. There is a solution. Kind of strange that the same people who discovered this alarming increase in air pollution related deaths are also the ones wanting the funds to combat it. "Science" sure is funny that way sometimes.

"Few risks have greater impact on global health today than air pollution: the evidence signals the need for concerted action to clean up the air we all breathe," said Dr. Maria Neira, director of WHO's Department for Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health in the report.
   2919. Shredder Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4676938)
For the first time, Alaska Democratic Senator Nick Begich is trailing in a poll
Probably because Nick Begich has been presumed dead since 1972. It is indeed a tough landscape for Dems if Nick Begich is trailing in a poll, though likely not as tough as the landscape that Nick Begich's Cessna crashed into over 40 years ago.
   2920. Steve Treder Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4676940)
Kind of strange that the same people who discovered this alarming increase in air pollution related deaths are also the ones wanting the funds to combat it.

If by "kind of strange," you mean "completely sensible and logical," then we agree.
   2921. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:10 PM (#4676939)
I don't think air pollution is the chief cause of heart disease or strokes.

Science, you know.


The WHO claim is based on observed data. What is the basis of your dismissal?


Spike, can you show me this "observed data" showing air pollution is the chief cause of heart disease and strokes?

WHO claiming it to be the case doesn't make it true.

Thanks.

   2922. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:13 PM (#4676942)
I'm not misstating what WHO is saying at all.

No one said you were, I simply asked what the basis of your objection was - and you are going with "conflict of interest". Asking non-doctors about illness causation, while overcoming your objection, would not make me more sanguine about their answers though.
   2923. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:15 PM (#4676946)
Spike, can you show me this "observed data" showing air pollution is the chief cause of heart disease and strokes?

WHO claiming it to be the case doesn't make it true.

Thanks.


You could read the dang article which has a link to the study they are using.

By the way, where might I find the data for your counterclaim? Can I hold you to the same standard of not believing your claim as true until then?
   2924. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:22 PM (#4676949)
You mean the study stating this?


For the first time, a study suggests that being exposed to high levels of traffic pollution is linked to changes in the mass and size of the right chamber of the heart. The researchers believe this may contribute to the known connection between air pollution exposure and heart disease.


Does that sound conclusive to you?

   2925. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:23 PM (#4676950)
Kind of strange that the same people who discovered this alarming increase in air pollution related deaths are also the ones wanting the funds to combat it. "Science" sure is funny that way sometimes.


The tried and true "they only find bad things in order to get funding" meme. Classic.
   2926. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:29 PM (#4676952)
What is classic is how WHO blames the one million smoking deaths in China each year on "air pollution."

Brilliant!
   2927. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4676953)
Does that sound conclusive to you?

Why don't you read and cite the study data and tell me if you find it persuasive, instead of just reading the summary?

Specific objections would be nice.
   2928. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:38 PM (#4676956)
Spike, can you show me this "observed data" showing air pollution is the chief cause of heart disease and strokes?

WHO claiming it to be the case doesn't make it true.


Do you have ANY ####### idea of what the levels of air pollution in Beijing and many of China's other major cities are like? Have you ever seen videos of the entire population of those cities walking around the streets with masks in order to give themselves at least some minimal protection? How long do you think you'd last in that sort of an environment?

Do you seriously think that there's no link between this sort of air pollution and major diseases? Coal-fueled stoves and cigarettes add to the danger, but obviously "air pollution" is a multi-faceted phenomenon that only a complete fool would try to dismiss.
   2929. Shredder Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:46 PM (#4676965)
What is classic is how WHO blames the one million smoking deaths in China each year on "air pollution."
I've not been to China, but from many of the reports I've read and pictures I've seen, in many places smoking cigarettes may actually be more healthy than breathing the air.
   2930. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:49 PM (#4676967)
Another data point about the 2014 election climate.


and some more:

Generic Congressional Ballot:

most recent Ras poll has Dem +4, their previous one had Rep+1
most recent GWU/Battleground poll shows a tie, their previous one was Rep +2
most recent PPP Poll has Dem +3, their previous one was Rep +2
most recent Fox News Poll had Dem +2, their previous one was Rep +2
most recent ABC News/Wash Post poll has Dem +1, their previous one had Rep +1

I see a trend...



   2931. Steve Treder Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:50 PM (#4676968)
I've not been to China

I have been to China, and the smog was epic. Los Angeles on its worst day has nothing on it.
   2932. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:51 PM (#4676969)
I have - spent a couple months in Shanghai - and it was a push 5 years ago. I can't imagine what it's like now.
   2933. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:57 PM (#4676973)
Spike, can you show me this "observed data" showing air pollution is the chief cause of heart disease and strokes?


You keep trying to move the goal posts with the "chief cause" line. Seriously do you think air pollution is good for you? Is neutral regarding general health?

What exactly are you saying? Are they liars? Is it a conspiracy? Or do you demand 100% surety in every claim ever before you act?
   2934. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2014 at 05:59 PM (#4676974)
I have - spent a couple months in Shanghai - and it was a push 5 years ago. I can't imagine what it's like now.

A short video report from Bloomberg News on the reality of Beijing's air pollution. Apparently some people (not you) haven't noticed.
   2935. zonk Posted: March 25, 2014 at 06:04 PM (#4676976)
I have - spent a couple months in Shanghai - and it was a push 5 years ago. I can't imagine what it's like now.


Actually - many (certainly not all and certainly not uniform) places in China are really success stories in this area...

China has dumped an absolute crapton of money and resources into environmental cleanup, environmental controls, and clean energy -- and this is part of the reason why...

China's own academia and health services have plenty of studies showing that China is suffering and will only suffer worse without changes from a whole host of pollution-related health issues and premature deaths. Obviously, the nature of censorship in China is such the government doesn't exactly trumpet this fact and then rely on public pressure to awaken the magic market faeries to make everything better -- they simply dictate changes and with a state-run economy or at least heavily state-dictated economy, they simply invest in the necessary technological changes.

All the caterwauling over 'Solyndra' from way back when was a byproduct of this -- Solyndra wasn't a bad bet for public investment, it just so happened that were producing the same manner of solar panels that a Chinese firm was making... and with China dumping huge sums into clean energy, well... do the math...

That said - the Chinese changes have certainly been uneven... There are still swaths of western China that are heavily involved in recycling computer waste products, for example, and are basically so toxic that you wouldn't want to spend much time there... but a lot of eastern cities in China have made enormous - even remarkable - strides in reducing pollution, enacting various programs to clean up the mess, etc.

China is basically facing the same sort of issues that the US and much of Europe faced a century ago.... The problem - and what ought to concern us - is that whereas it was always looked in the west as a sort of expense we'd have rather done without, the Chinese are viewing it more as an investment opportunity. As parts of Africa, India, etc industrialize - the thing you invent now to clean up your own mess might well pay handsomely down the road, too.
   2936. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 06:10 PM (#4676977)
You keep trying to move the goal posts with the "chief cause" line. Seriously do you think air pollution is good for you? Is neutral regarding general health?


I said "chief cause" from the beginning. You are the one who keeps trying to move the goal posts by asking me if air pollution is good for people. Of course it isn't.

It also isn't cause of 1 out of 8 people dying in this world. Do you agree with that?




What exactly are you saying? Are they liars? Is it a conspiracy? Or do you demand 100% surety in every claim ever before you act?


WHO claims 1 million people die each year in China from smoking. They then include that same population in a study claiming 1 out of 8 deaths are caused by air pollution.

That's pretty horrible science there. Conspiracy or incompetence, it's one or the other.
   2937. zonk Posted: March 25, 2014 at 06:29 PM (#4676980)
Here's a little something from the Economist on China's pollution problems from last August --


It has just said that China will spend $275 billion over the next five years improving air quality—roughly the same as the GDP of Hong Kong, and twice the size of the annual defence budget. Even by Chinese standards it is a massive sum.


Imagine that for a second -- twice the annual defense budget solely on air quality improvements.

In contrast, the US spends about 6 billion total in renewable subsidies annually (so 30 billion over the same period) and collectively (public subsidy + private investment)... Total size of US clean energy investment - public and private - is around 50-55 billion annually.

   2938. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 06:30 PM (#4676981)
It also isn't cause of 1 out of 8 people dying in this world.

What specifically do you take issue with in their methodology? Why are you convinced this is inaccurate by inspection?

That's pretty horrible science there.

I'd like to see some of yours that rebuts the findings in their study, horrible or not.
   2939. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 07:00 PM (#4676995)
What are the leading causes of heart disease and strokes, Spike? Where is air pollution on that list?

If it isn't #1, you should have a problem with the methodology.

   2940. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 25, 2014 at 07:14 PM (#4676999)
Imagine that for a second -- twice the annual defense budget solely on air quality improvements. In contrast, the US spends about 6 billion total in renewable subsidies annually (so 30 billion over the same period) and collectively (public subsidy + private investment)... Total size of US clean energy investment - public and private - is around 50-55 billion annually.

Perhaps not all Chinese government statements should be taken at face value. They have touted a lot of things -- decades of anti-corruption drives, for example -- that were never implemented.
   2941. spike Posted: March 25, 2014 at 07:46 PM (#4677005)
What are the leading causes of heart disease and strokes, Spike? Where is air pollution on that list?

If it isn't #1, you should have a problem with the methodology.


I'll take this to mean you won't be specifically rebutting anything anytime soon.

Thank you for the discussion.
   2942. Shibal Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:38 PM (#4677024)
????

My rebuttal is air pollution is not the leading factor of heart disease and strokes. This study claims otherwise.

I can post thousands of links that support my position. How many studies do you have supporting yours?
   2943. zonk Posted: March 25, 2014 at 08:43 PM (#4677025)
Imagine that for a second -- twice the annual defense budget solely on air quality improvements. In contrast, the US spends about 6 billion total in renewable subsidies annually (so 30 billion over the same period) and collectively (public subsidy + private investment)... Total size of US clean energy investment - public and private - is around 50-55 billion annually.

Perhaps not all Chinese government statements should be taken at face value. They have touted a lot of things -- decades of anti-corruption drives, for example -- that were never implemented.


I'm not suggesting they should --

But anyone in the clean energy industry will tell you that the Chinese are most certainly dumping oodles of money into clean energy. I've got a buddy working for a startup that's developing a more efficient energy transfer process from solar panels and China is far and away their biggest fear... Obviously, a big part of that is that Chinese industry isn't exactly well known for respecting patents - but it's not quite like patenting say, a chemical formula for a drug... There's only so much that's true patentable in the energy engineering space, so even cheap knockoffs that deliver, say, just 75% the same efficiency can quickly put them out of business if a big player simply floods the market, at a loss, with something "almost as good".... then - poof - the money dries up for further research.

For better or for worse, like it or not - clean/renewable energy is certainly the energy of the future... we just don't know whether it's 5-10-15-more years.

Once upon a time, people didn't blanch at spending enormous sums -- see the space race, for example -- of public monies on science that didn't necessarily have an immediate ROI... There's venture capital out there, to be sure - but the time horizons still tend to be too long for most investors.

Let's say the Chinese figure is off by 50%... or even 90%.... it's still more than we're publicly investing (well, without digging through the military budget... in fact, the military budget is rapidly becoming the best place to shop such technologies for public investment - obviously, an army that doesn't need to deal with fuel as a logistic concern has an advantage).

All I'm saying is that while China remains THE prime pollutor on the planet, they're also investing heavily in the technologies to resolve that issue...

I don't think it even requires one to take a position on 'climate change' to believe we ought to be concerned about that.
   2944. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:05 PM (#4677027)
This seems like an unforced error. While fundraising before a group of Texas trial lawyers, Iowa Democratic Senate Candidate Took A Few Shots At Chuck Grassley, Iowa's Senior Senator:
Braley is running to succeed retiring Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Conservative group American Rising PAC posted the YouTube video showing Braley making the comments, arguing that he needed to keep the state's open Senate seat in Democratic hands to keep Grassley from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee if Republicans win control of the upper chamber. 

"To put this in stark contrast, if you help me win this race you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice, someone who's been literally fighting tort reform for thirty years, in a visible or public way, on the Senate Judiciary Committee,” Braley said. “Or, you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Because, if Democrats lose the majority, Chuck Grassley will be the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee,” he continued.

Bad political form on many levels. It draws attention to Braley's out-of-state fundraising before special interest groups (although just about everyone does it, candidates don't often publicize it). The statement appears to use "farmer" in a disparaging manner - never a good idea for an Iowa politician. It also reminds voters that if they elect the GOP candidate, Grassley will be a committee chairman, enhancing the state's influence. Even more importantly, it takes a shot at Grassley, who is much more popular than Braley. Needless to say, Braley has hastily apologized, but I suspect some damage has been done. Might matter in a close race.
   2945. RollingWave Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:39 PM (#4677034)
well, I'd say man kind been fighting corruption since there was a government organization and that hasn't worked out too well.

China has been changing at a massive pace, and impact pretty much every sector. I'd note that for example, about 25 years ago, there were only about 2 dozen company in the world that manufactured agglomerated marbles (a process where rubble and small unusable boulders are grind to dust and then compressed into a usable stone block ), the vast majority of them were in Italy. but today, there are about 100 + of these companies in China if you include the new breed of engineered quartz companies.

It has been a big factor, and not unlike the solar sector the old Italian companies are trying hard to put a anti-dumping case on their Chinese competitors.

Speaking of which, I see strong correlations between Taiwan's current crisis to the Ukraine one (a protest based on phobia and political power games disguised as "democratic movement" against a majority government that's trying to play a delicate geopolitical game. ) and could see a similar outcome, not nearly as likely, but it's not improbable that the 2 major outlying islands of Taiwan right outside of China's Fujian province would cede and rejoin China. of course, unlike Crimea, China actually has an incentive NOT to accept. (because it would probably make it less likely for them to be able to take the whole thing, not more.)
   2946. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 25, 2014 at 09:57 PM (#4677038)
Would they need to do this if things were working? ObamaCare Enrollment Period Extended:
Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension. Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

The rules, which will apply to the federal exchanges operating in three dozen states, will essentially create a large loophole even as White House officials have repeatedly said that the March 31 deadline was firm. The extra time will not technically alter the deadline but will create a broad new category of people eligible for what’s known as a special enrollment period.

An unending series of exemptions, exceptions, waivers, postponements, and delays. More to come?
   2947. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:11 PM (#4677041)
Would they need to do this if things were working?


Because they want more people insured? See Clapper some people - let's call them Democrats - want to help get uninsured people insurance. So that these people can get health care and live better lives and all that good stuff. If there are people who want insurance and have not gotten it, and still want it, then those people who want to help do things - like extending deadlines - that are ... wait for it ... helpful.

So, acknowledging there has been issues, like with the website, they want to extend the deadline and help out those who want the insurance.

This is not a conspiracy. This is not a trick. The entire point of the law is to get more people insured, and extending the deadline helps in that.

   2948. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:17 PM (#4677043)
My rebuttal is air pollution is not the leading factor of heart disease and strokes. This study claims otherwise.


So the problem is your reading comprehension. Got it.

The study says 7 million people die annually from air pollution. Without the air pollution, those people would not have died.

Outdoor air pollution-caused deaths:

Ischemic heart disease - 40%
Stroke - 40%
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) - 11%
Lung cancer - 6%
Acute lower respiratory infections in children - 3%.

Indoor air pollution-caused deaths:

Stroke - 34%
Ischemic heart disease - 26%
COPD - 22%
Acute lower respiratory infections in children - 12%
Lung cancer - 6%.


Why are you obsessed with it being the "leading factor" or earlier the "primary cause". That is not what they are saying. They are saying, based on their study of the factors involved, including people who died and medical science, that air pollution caused those deaths.

So rather than blather about "leading cause" this and "primary cause" that (like you have been), please point out what of their science you think is wrong.
   2949. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:27 PM (#4677046)
Let me give an example why obsessing on "primary cause" is foolish.

Example (note: this is hypothetical and not real medicine, for real medicine talk to the World Health organization).

Suppose obesity is the primary cause of Ischemic Heart Disease. And in BitterMouseLand, with no air pollution, 10 people would die each year of IHD. In ShibalLand, with air so thick you can cut it with a knife, 25 people die each year from IHD. In all of the cases the primary cause was Obesity. Pretty much everyone who died was obese, but the air pollution was a contributing factor in the deaths, to the point that 15 extra deaths occurred in ShibalLand because of the air pollution.

Obesity (in this example) is still the primary cause of IHD. However air pollution still caused a huge number of deaths. Now if none of the people were obese, maybe that would be even better, however in the example above 15 deaths were cause by air pollution.

EDIT: And by the way this should be obvious, but the study is just limiting itself to death. There are huge health and quality of life implications as well as cost of medical care and so on. yes the death toll is staggering, but there is even more cost associated with air pollution than just the dead.
   2950. zonk Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:48 PM (#4677053)
China has been changing at a massive pace, and impact pretty much every sector. I'd note that for example, about 25 years ago, there were only about 2 dozen company in the world that manufactured agglomerated marbles (a process where rubble and small unusable boulders are grind to dust and then compressed into a usable stone block ), the vast majority of them were in Italy. but today, there are about 100 + of these companies in China if you include the new breed of engineered quartz companies.


Yeah -

I forgot where I read it - HBR, maybe - but there was an interesting article a year or so back highlighting the fact that the 'happiness index' for the first time saw China leading - even lapping, all of the western nations.

Obviously, there are plenty issues even most Chinese would complain about regarding their government.... but a couple years back, we were using a Chinese vendor for some large scale content digitization. After some meetings, we were having dinner and the talk turned to international politics (never a good idea, but one of the gents we were with brought it up) and we actually had a pretty interesting discussion. These weren't Chinese power players - they were basically jr execs - who knows if they were telling the truth or not, but of the two guys I was talking with, neither came from 'connections' and we got into a pretty deep - respectful, but deep and thorough - discussion about which of our respective countries offered the better 'opportunity'.

Some of it was national pride, to be sure, but it was hard not to get the sense of the same sort of 'American dream' we mythologize... Even more than actual GDP or material innovation - it's worth wondering (and worrying) if that 'better life' dream has a developed a stronger foothold in China. The point I kept coming back to was basically "Yeah, but regardless of who's in charge -- I can complain to my heart's content"... one guys' counterpoint was "And what good does that do you?" It was a tough argument to refute, not that I didn't try.

Not saying it's smooth sailing for China, seems to me that there still has to be some sort of reckoning or breaking point where merely 'hundreds of thousands' or even 'millions' in a country of billions 'making it' might not be enough... but purely from a historical perspective, the Chinese of the 21st century are on their way to doing what the great civilizations of humanity's history have accomplished: striking that balance where national pride, opportunity, and marshaling of resources (people and material) put nations in the history books as owners of an era.
   2951. zonk Posted: March 25, 2014 at 10:59 PM (#4677056)
Bad political form on many levels. It draws attention to Braley's out-of-state fundraising before special interest groups (although just about everyone does it, candidates don't often publicize it). The statement appears to use "farmer" in a disparaging manner - never a good idea for an Iowa politician. It also reminds voters that if they elect the GOP candidate, Grassley will be a committee chairman, enhancing the state's influence. Even more importantly, it takes a shot at Grassley, who is much more popular than Braley. Needless to say, Braley has hastily apologized, but I suspect some damage has been done. Might matter in a close race.


TPM has been following Braley's asinine comments since he made them - and yeah, moron...

It's a huge unforced error.

The thing is, again - knowing plenty of farmers - most of them wouldn't disagree with the basic point... Farmers I know make no claim to be experts in banking or the like, and are likewise amendable to trusting accountants to do their accounting, lawyers to do their lawyering, and bankers to do their banking (they'd, of course, tend towards the small-town variety rather than the mega-versions)... but there are ways to make this point that don't sound insulting or elitist.

You know what the truly odd thing is?

Braley's family actually DOES own a family farm... and Grassley's -- near as I can tell going back like 50 years -- did not.

Bruce Braley has a better tie to 'farming' than Grassley does... but good luck making that known now.
   2952. Morty Causa Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:15 PM (#4677060)
   2953. RollingWave Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:16 PM (#4677061)
[2950] I think there is a simple explanation here, people as a whole, generally feel best when things go up, thus a poor folk getting wealthier is going to be feeling happier than most middle class guys that's stuck in their place. This isn't exactly ground breaking science here.

It's why the American boom days were in the 20s and 50s, if you actually look into those times on a objective basis, they SUCKED, the former came in the days when workers were badly oppressed and unions were often literally at war with the state (oh and WW1), the later came after 2 decades of either gigantic recession or war.

That is why folks in China is generally happy, when things are going up, your going to feel that the future is bright, regardless of whatever current issues there are.

If you look at Taiwan, there is A LOT of reasons that this should be a happy place, we have lower unemployment than China (that's not a typo.) and our effective wage (wages compared with local cost of living) is absurdly high (higher than Japan and the UK, that's also not a typo.) It's also not nearly as crazy intense as japan / korea as a whole. ........ and of course the general feeling is that of doom and gloom.
   2954. Greg K Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:34 PM (#4677063)
Happiest and Saddest countries

From the link:
So who’s the happiest? As has been the case the past five years, that distinction goes to countries that enjoy peace, freedom, good healthcare, quality education, a functioning political system and plenty of opportunity: Norway, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand.


Suck it Bolivia!
   2955. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:35 PM (#4677065)
This is not a conspiracy. This is not a trick. The entire point of the law is to get more people insured, and extending the deadline helps in that.

And if most of the Republican-controlled states hadn't been trying to put a permanent monkey wrench in the ACA and Medicare expansion from the moment the law was passed and signed, millions more would be getting coverage already. The GOP is like the boy who killed his parents and then whined to the judge that he was an orphan.
   2956. greenback calls it soccer Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:41 PM (#4677067)
Piketty's book sounds like it's worth a read, even if it is a substantial investment of my time. Here is a review:
The core message of this enormous and enormously important book can be delivered in a few lines: Left to its own devices, wealth inevitably tends to concentrate in capitalist economies. There is no “natural” mechanism inherent in the structure of such economies for inhibiting, much less reversing, that tendency. Only crises like war and depression, or political interventions like taxation (which, to the upper classes, would be a crisis), can do the trick. And Thomas Piketty has two centuries of data to prove his point.

In more technical terms, the central argument of Capital in the Twenty-First Century is that as long as the rate of return on capital, r, exceeds the rate of broad growth in national income, g—that is, r > g—capital will concentrate. It is an empirical fact that the rate of return on capital—income in the form of profits, dividends, rents, and the like, divided by the value of the assets that produce the income—has averaged 4–5 percent over the last two centuries or so. It is also an empirical fact that the growth rate in GDP per capita has averaged 1–2 percent. There are periods and places where growth is faster, of course: the United States in younger days, Japan from the 1950s through the 1980s, China over the last thirty years. But these are exceptions—and the two earlier examples have reverted to the mean. So if that 4–5 percent return is largely saved rather than being bombed, taxed, or dissipated away, it will accumulate into an ever-greater mass relative to average incomes. That may seem like common sense to anyone who’s lived through the last few decades, but it’s always nice to have evidence back up common sense, which isn’t always reliable.

   2957. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:42 PM (#4677068)
Braley's family actually DOES own a family farm... and Grassley's -- near as I can tell going back like 50 years -- did not.

So you're calling Braley a liar? In his defense, Grassley is listed as a farmer everywhere I looked. Apparently his son currently operates the farm.
   2958. Greg K Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:44 PM (#4677070)
The GOP is like the boy who killed his parents and then whined to the judge that he was an orphan.

To perhaps take this on a tangent. Without knowing anything about it I always assumed Lizzie Borden was guilty (in fact, I kind of thought she had been convicted). But last night I was reading up on it, and her wikipedia page seemed to have a pretty unsettled tone to it. Though the alternative explanations all sounded fairly far fetched. Is it generally assumed she did it?
   2959. The Yankee Clapper Posted: March 25, 2014 at 11:52 PM (#4677072)
Make of this what you will - Jimmy Carter: "Obama Never Calls Me".
   2960. Greg K Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:05 AM (#4677076)
“I have felt that my own communications are probably monitored,” Carter, who has frequently criticized the National Security Agency in the past, said. “And when I want to communicate with a foreign leader privately, I type or write the letter myself, put it in the Post Office and mail it, because I believe if I send an email, it will be monitored.”

As anyone who was at the Congress of Vienna can attest, the mail isn't too secure either for political figures worried about surveillance. Metternich had quite a spy system going.

One wonders whether Carter erred during his presidency by never once asking Talleyrand for advice.
   2961. bobm Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:12 AM (#4677077)
So who’s the happiest? As has been the case the past five years, that distinction goes to countries that enjoy peace, freedom, good healthcare, quality education, a functioning political system and plenty of opportunity: Norway, Sweden, Canada and New Zealand.


Anyone find Bhutan on that list? :)
   2962. bobm Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:22 AM (#4677079)
See Clapper some people - let's call them Democrats - want to help get uninsured people insurance. So that these people can get health care and live better lives and all that good stuff.

Does signing up an underwhelming 1.5% of the previously uninsured justify the upheaval and government intrusion into private health insurance? It's pathetic and wasteful IMO.

According to the Census Bureau, 48 million Americans were uninsured in 2012. [...]

About 5 million people overall had enrolled in ACA plans as of March 17, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). [...]

But McKinsey, a leading management consulting firm, polled about 2,100 exchange-eligible Americans in February, and found only 27 percent of people who had picked a plan were previously uninsured. Only 53 percent of them had paid their first premium, compared with 86 percent of the previously insured. With 5 million total enrollments, that would be about 715,500 previously uninsured Americans who had chosen and paid for new insurance. [Emphasis added]


http://www.cnbc.com/id/101512883
   2963. The District Attorney Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:23 AM (#4677080)
Without knowing anything about it I always assumed Lizzie Borden was guilty (in fact, I kind of thought she had been convicted). But last night I was reading up on it, and her wikipedia page seemed to have a pretty unsettled tone to it. Though the alternative explanations all sounded fairly far fetched. Is it generally assumed she did it?
Bill James thinks it's obvious that the actual evidence presented at trial didn't establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. He then goes on to say that he does think she was innocent, mostly based on the notion that she wouldn't have had time to clean up all the blood.
   2964. steagles Posted: March 26, 2014 at 02:45 AM (#4677092)
Does signing up an underwhelming 1.5% of the previously uninsured justify the upheaval and government intrusion into private health insurance? It's pathetic and wasteful IMO.
two things:

first, if obamacare was truly as terrible as republicans hope it is, it seems to me that the calls to repeal it would be mostly driven by the healthcare industry instead of being driven entirely by republican office holders and operatives.

second, obamacare had a lot of other important provisions, so even if the mandate isn't a home run, the law still basically is.

and third, the status quo was unsustainable. maybe it would have been better in the short term to have not done anything (though i strongly disagree with even that statement), but i would say that opinion is comparable to not getting a flu shot because it stings. except with the pre-obamacare health industry, the flu was both inevitable and inconceivable.

and fourth, i do think obamacare suffers from not having a focused enough objective. it tries to lower costs, it tries to get more people covered, it tries to improve the quality of that coverage, and it tries to do all of that without causing too much of a disturbance to the existing framework of health care in this country. i actually think obamacare has largely managed to do all of that (if you disagree, go back to point #1 of this post)), but it would be much easier to tout its benefits if it hadn't tried.

and as long as i'm doing this:
fifth, like it or not, obamacare is the law of the land until 2017, at least, and at that point it will have been law for 7 years. and again, like it or not, any successful effort to repeal it will be at least as much of a disruption to the status quo as obamacare was. if that is grounds for anyone's opposition, then repeal should be a complete non-starter.
   2965. Monty Posted: March 26, 2014 at 02:51 AM (#4677093)
He then goes on to say that he does think she was innocent, mostly based on the notion that she wouldn't have had time to clean up all the blood.


The problem is that then you're left with somebody sneaking into the house, killing two people brutally, and sneaking back out, which also seems weird and unlikely. So with no entirely convincing theory, you're pretty much free to think whatever you want, which is perfect for this kind of thing.
   2966. Joe Kehoskie Posted: March 26, 2014 at 03:59 AM (#4677099)
first, if obamacare was truly as terrible as republicans hope it is, it seems to me that the calls to repeal it would be mostly driven by the healthcare industry instead of being driven entirely by republican office holders and operatives.

Obamacare includes preemptive bailout provisions for the insurance companies, so they win either way.

and fourth, i do think obamacare suffers from not having a focused enough objective. it tries to lower costs, it tries to get more people covered, it tries to improve the quality of that coverage, and it tries to do all of that without causing too much of a disturbance to the existing framework of health care in this country. i actually think obamacare has largely managed to do all of that (if you disagree, go back to point #1 of this post)), but it would be much easier to tout its benefits if it hadn't tried.

Obamacare has lowered costs? You've got to be kidding. If millions of families were saving money, we'd be hearing about it.

fifth, like it or not, obamacare is the law of the land until 2017, at least, and at that point it will have been law for 7 years. and again, like it or not, any successful effort to repeal it will be at least as much of a disruption to the status quo as obamacare was. if that is grounds for anyone's opposition, then repeal should be a complete non-starter.

Obamacare "will have been law for 7 years," but at most it will have been in full effect for one year, assuming the parts delayed until 2016 aren't delayed yet again.
   2967. Lassus Posted: March 26, 2014 at 06:37 AM (#4677106)
There is some kind of psychology doctoral dissertation in YC's communication/language usage.

Not a huge deal... but
This seems like an unforced error.
More to come?
Make of this what you will

   2968. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 26, 2014 at 07:42 AM (#4677113)
   2969. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 26, 2014 at 07:47 AM (#4677114)
Make of this what you will - Jimmy Carter: "Obama Never Calls Me".


You're going to lose your #### when Jason Carter wins the GA governorship.
   2970. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 26, 2014 at 08:05 AM (#4677116)
Obamacare has lowered costs?


The lost art of reading. "it tries to lower costs", and it has succeeded to the point that the health cost curve (rate of change in health care costs) has bent downward (that is the good direction, by the way). So yes it appears it has changed and in fact lowered what costs would have been without it.


Obamacare "will have been law for 7 years," but at most it will have been in full effect for one year, assuming the parts delayed until 2016 aren't delayed yet again.


EDIT: My bad, I misread Joe K's comment. Below edited because of that.

Most of ACA - minimum standards, no max payments, no pre-existing conditions, covering adult children, expansion of medicaid, and the health care exchanges - will have been in place for years. I think the stuff not in effect is pretty small, but whatever.
   2971. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 08:37 AM (#4677125)
Make of this what you will - Jimmy Carter: "Obama Never Calls Me".

You're going to lose your #### when Jason Carter wins the GA governorship.


Say what you will about President Carter, but he never traded weapons to terrorists in exchange for hostages.
   2972. bobm Posted: March 26, 2014 at 08:46 AM (#4677127)
obamacare had a lot of other important provisions, so even if the mandate isn't a home run, the law still basically is,

One can talk about the popularity of coverage for under-27s and preexisting conditions, but that is less like the pain of inoculation than trying to get kids to eat vegetables for dinner by serving them carrot cake and pumpkin pie.

obamacare is the law of the land until 2017, at least, and at that point it will have been law for 7 years. 

The ACA is only now starting to have negative effects, like policy cancellations. The premium rises are yet to come. The impact of $6,000 deductibles (surprise!) on the newly insured, their attention focused largely on premiums, are yet to manifest. The President has watered down and courageously deferred the mandates until after he leaves office rather than be forced to defend them, esp after being caught in the "if you like your insurance" family cost savings prevarications.

   2973. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 26, 2014 at 08:55 AM (#4677129)
One can talk about the popularity of coverage for under-27s and preexisting conditions, but that is less like the pain of inoculation than trying to get kids to eat vegetables for dinner by serving them carrot cake and pumpkin pie.


This makes no sense. The only parts of ACA that poll poorly are the nasty bits required to make it work (like mandates, which are unpopular for obvious reasons).

However after years of the stuff that polls well the GOP (assuming they take control in 2016, which I doubt) will have to have some sort of replacement scheme. And they have failed at that for years now. And when they try to repeal and "replace" the horror stories will be on the other foot, and since what they seem to want to do is much more disruptive than ACA in terms of impact, well good luck with that.

The ACA is only now starting to have negative effects, like policy cancellations. The premium rises are yet to come.


Millions of people insured. Millions more benefiting from the carrot cake and pumpkin pie. And shockingly before ACA policies were cancelled all the time and premiums rose every year. Pretending everything bad that happens is the fault of ACA is good politics (I guess) , but not very compelling as fact.
   2974. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 09:41 AM (#4677159)
Does signing up an underwhelming 1.5% of the previously uninsured justify the upheaval and government intrusion into private health insurance? It's pathetic and wasteful IMO.


What's the huge government intrusion? You're required to have health insurance. Apparently this has compelled just 715,000 people who didn't have health insurance before to get health insurance. I'm not sure you can argue that this has been a huge intervention AND has also been unsuccessful at covering a lot more people.
   2975. zonk Posted: March 26, 2014 at 09:46 AM (#4677162)
This makes no sense. The only parts of ACA that poll poorly are the nasty bits required to make it work (like mandates, which are unpopular for obvious reasons).

However after years of the stuff that polls well the GOP (assuming they take control in 2016, which I doubt) will have to have some sort of replacement scheme. And they have failed at that for years now. And when they try to repeal and "replace" the horror stories will be on the other foot, and since what they seem to want to do is much more disruptive than ACA in terms of impact, well good luck with that.


It's more than just the under-27 provision.... It's the prohibition on rescission... It's the preexisting condition elimination... and while it's taken it's lumps and the administration (made a mistake in my opinion) waivered it, the plan minimums would be a long-term winner, too. You don't have to look too far to find instances of people that were insured but got stuck with crushing bills because things you'd think were covered (ambulance, ER care, etc) were excluded in the fine print. The subsidies are popular. Medicaid expansion polls well even among GOP rank and file.

No one says much about it -- but lifting the 'charity care' burden off of Medicare bought it nearly another decade of solvency.

If the GOP wants to keep all that and just eliminate the employer and individual mandates permanently -- fine... Then all we need is either A)a way to pay for it, or B)a promise that we'll keep borrowing to pay for it.

   2976. JE (Jason) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:00 AM (#4677173)
Mouse in #2973:
Millions of people insured.

vs. what BobM had referenced via CNBC in #2962:
According to the Census Bureau, 48 million Americans were uninsured in 2012. [...]

About 5 million people overall had enrolled in ACA plans as of March 17, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). [...]

But McKinsey, a leading management consulting firm, polled about 2,100 exchange-eligible Americans in February, and found only 27 percent of people who had picked a plan were previously uninsured. Only 53 percent of them had paid their first premium, compared with 86 percent of the previously insured. With 5 million total enrollments, that would be about 715,500 previously uninsured Americans who had chosen and paid for new insurance. [Emphasis added]

Interesting.
   2977. Shredder Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:06 AM (#4677179)
For all of the terrible things Obamacare has done according to the wingnuts on this board, you'd think that AFP would be able to find an Obamacare horror story that wasn't a complete fabrication.
   2978. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM (#4677191)
Hey, have you all heard about this airplane that disappeared in Malaysia? Just heard about it on the news. Wonder what happened, figure with something like that people would talk about it a little.
   2979. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:26 AM (#4677194)
Interesting.


So you are going with a poll and assuming if they have not yet paid they won't. And ignoring Medicaid expansion. And ignoring the under 27 provision.

Interesting. However if you include medicaid and the under 27 provision it is millions even if every one of the people who have no paid a premium don't ever pay and get the boot.

So yeah, I am going with millions for ACA.

EDIT: And reliable estimates are it will end up about 6 million total enrolling in ACA plans this year. But hey what is a million people.
   2980. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4677196)
I have firsthand experience with pre-existing conditions (as a young 20-something) limiting insurance to expensive short term plans that increase in price exponentially every year. Anyone who has never had to deal with that, and still wants to complain about the ACA can go #### themselves as far as I am concerned. Removing the pre-existing conditions blanket from the insurance companies is a huge win.
   2981. JE (Jason) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:29 AM (#4677197)
Hey, have you all heard about this airplane that disappeared in Malaysia? Just heard about it on the news. Wonder what happened, figure with something like that people would talk about it a little.

I am stunned that the mudslide near Seattle which may have killed north of 200 people isn't getting more coverage in the American media.
   2982. JE (Jason) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:34 AM (#4677201)
And reliable estimates

Duck!
   2983. The Good Face Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:41 AM (#4677206)
I am stunned that the mudslide near Seattle which may have killed north of 200 people isn't getting more coverage in the American media.


Meh, it's Seattle. Wake me up if something happens in a place where God pays attention.
   2984. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 26, 2014 at 10:45 AM (#4677209)
I am stunned that the mudslide near Seattle which may have killed north of 200 people isn't getting more coverage in the American media.


Dead hippies don't rate.
   2985. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 11:04 AM (#4677220)
Dead hippies don't rate.


And apparently one missing plane is equal to about 20 missing attractive white women.
   2986. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 26, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4677225)
And apparently one missing plane is equal to about 20 missing attractive white women.


Sure but some Diplomats in Benghazi! trump them all.

The M$M has priorities towards getting eyes, not for gauging what is important. We all know this. I do admit the mystery around the Malaysian Jet made it a pretty interesting story, much more so than a mud slide.
   2987. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 26, 2014 at 11:27 AM (#4677229)
nd apparently one missing plane is equal to about 20 missing attractive white women.


It's a sequel to Lost for CNN's rating purposes. They had two full weeks of "where could it be?! where could it have gone?! Is it in Asia being loaded with explosives? Could it have been aliens? What about black holes?! Magnets, how do they ####### work?!!" Anything to avoid the dry, boring \"#### fell in the ocean, yo."
   2988. JE (Jason) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 11:31 AM (#4677232)
The M$M has priorities towards getting eyes, not for gauging what is important. We all know this. I do admit the mystery around the Malaysian Jet made it a pretty interesting story, much more so than a mud slide.

If only there was a three-minute video clip of the mudslide chasing a car down the mountain...
   2989. The Good Face Posted: March 26, 2014 at 11:44 AM (#4677235)
If only there was a three-minute video clip of the mudslide chasing a car down the mountain...


And you just wrote the script for the next Tom Cruise movie.

(Ron Perlman voiceover)

The mudslide took us all by surprise. It was fast. Unstoppable. Implacable. Muddy. But it didn't count on one thing; retired disgraced former police detective inspector Speed Armstrong.

(cut to shot of Tom Cruise running from a mudslide, pumping his arms like Tom Cruise do, while cars explode in the background)
   2990. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:00 PM (#4677241)
Sure but some Diplomats in Benghazi! trump them all.

The M$M has priorities towards getting eyes, not for gauging what is important. We all know this. I do admit the mystery around the Malaysian Jet made it a pretty interesting story, much more so than a mud slide.


I certainly understand MSM is in it for the cash money, but the plane coverage has been, to my ears, unparalleled. Maybe it's just CNN, but literally 99% of the time when I listen to them on the radio for my commutes to and from work that ####### plane is the only thing they are talking about. And I literally mean the literal definition of literal here. The mudslide got approx 45 seconds of talky-time, then back to THE SEARCH FOR THE PLANE...DUN DUN DUNNNN.
   2991. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4677242)
Last night I turned on CNN (yes bad move, but hey I had to look for it on my channel guide, so it's not a mistake I make often- and my kids had drained the IPAD's batteries)
and hey, they were in fact covering a live press conference regarding the mudslide... and after 2 minutes cut away-

to Flight 370 coverage where 2 talking heads were speculating (i.,e bullshitting) - was anythng new/breaking with regard to the missing plane? No, of course not...

Do you know who was covering the mudslide on TV? The Weather Channel
   2992. The District Attorney Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:32 PM (#4677263)
The problem is that then you're left with somebody sneaking into the house, killing two people brutally, and sneaking back out, which also seems weird and unlikely.
Right. James essentially says that although the "outsider" theory seems unlikely, the Lizzie theory is impossible, and once you eliminate the impossible, etc.

(One amusing thing he mentions is that apparently, in a TV movie, Lizzie is depicted committing the murders in the nude. [And Lizzie was played by Elizabeth Montgomery -- sounds good!] James' commentary is that -- in addition to the fact that she'd still have tracked blood to the basement where the running water was -- "for a Victorian Sunday school teacher, the idea of running around an occupied house naked in the middle of the day is almost more inconceivable than committing a couple of hatchet murders." I think that comes off like it could be a joke, but it's likely true...)

There is some kind of psychology doctoral dissertation in YC's communication/language usage.

Not a huge deal... but
This seems like an unforced error.
More to come?
Make of this what you will
Yeah, his relentless passive-aggression utterly infuriates me. Which I'm guessing is his goal, so... yay?

Hey, have you all heard about this airplane that disappeared in Malaysia? Just heard about it on the news. Wonder what happened, figure with something like that people would talk about it a little.
I was really into it about a week ago, but now I'm thinking they're just either never going to find the plane, or they'll find it months or years from now. And then even if they do find it, the black box, etc. won't necessarily reveal the answers (it might, but it might not). So I'm basically tuned out until something happens.
   2993. zonk Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:38 PM (#4677269)
Face it, folks...

The day is coming when networks will no longer have a "news" division... It will just become a subset of the Reality Television division...
   2994. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4677279)
The day is coming when networks will no longer have a "news" division... It will just become a subset of the Reality Television division...


Heck, Fox News is already listed as part of "Fox Entertainment Group". It's only a matter of time before a marginally-credible news division follows suit.
   2995. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 26, 2014 at 12:59 PM (#4677289)
Maybe it's just CNN, but literally 99% of the time when I listen to them on the radio for my commutes to and from work that ####### plane is the only thing they are talking about.

But does it beat ESPN's 24/7 coverage of Brett FARVE's multiple retirements? It's gotta be close either way.
   2996. Bitter Mouse Posted: March 26, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4677293)
Yeah, his relentless passive-aggression utterly infuriates me. Which I'm guessing is his goal, so... yay?


I am guessing you don't frequent MN much. This place is the land of passive-aggressive and so I mostly tune it out. But yeah when I think about it, it annoys me as well.
   2997. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: March 26, 2014 at 01:17 PM (#4677299)
Yeah, his relentless passive-aggression utterly infuriates me. Which I'm guessing is his goal, so... yay?


I am guessing you don't frequent MN much. This place is the land of passive-aggressive and so I mostly tune it out. But yeah when I think about it, it annoys me as well.

YC's p/a schtick is about 1/10 the level of what Ray used to dish in his prime.
   2998. spike Posted: March 26, 2014 at 01:24 PM (#4677303)
And ignoring the under 27 provision.

And the significant number of underinsured who now have meaningful coverage.

And in other news, Nate Silver now has Rush Limbaugh for a defender.
   2999. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: March 26, 2014 at 01:57 PM (#4677330)
I was really into it about a week ago, but now I'm thinking they're just either never going to find the plane, or they'll find it months or years from now. And then even if they do find it, the black box, etc. won't necessarily reveal the answers (it might, but it might not).


Just wait to they find the black box...UNDERNEATH THE MUDSLIDE!
   3000. tfbg9 Posted: March 26, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4677344)
And you just wrote the script for the next Tom Cruise movie.


Say what you want about him, but Tom has been able to play the "young, cocky ___________*" for 30+ years.
Gotta be the record.



*insert occupation: race car driver, fighter pilot, bartender
Page 30 of 33 pages ‹ First  < 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Phil Birnbaum
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCurt Schilling not hiding his scars - ESPN Boston
(22 - 3:24am, Oct 25)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogBuster Olney on Twitter: "Sources: Manager Joe Maddon has exercised an opt-out clause in his contract and is leaving the Tampa Bay Rays immediately."
(81 - 2:03am, Oct 25)
Last: Dan

Newsblog9 reasons Hunter Pence is the most interesting man in the World (Series) | For The Win
(16 - 1:35am, Oct 25)
Last: base ball chick

NewsblogJohn McGrath: The Giants have become the Yankees — obnoxious | The News Tribune
(12 - 1:31am, Oct 25)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(916 - 1:29am, Oct 25)
Last: J. Sosa

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 3 OMNICHATTER
(515 - 1:26am, Oct 25)
Last: Pat Rapper's Delight

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(385 - 1:05am, Oct 25)
Last: tshipman

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(3736 - 12:23am, Oct 25)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogHow top World Series players ranked as prospects. | SportsonEarth.com : Jim Callis Article
(21 - 12:04am, Oct 25)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogRoyals get four AL Gold Glove finalists, but not Lorenzo Cain | The Kansas City Star
(14 - 11:59pm, Oct 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogDid Adam Dunn Ruin Baseball? – The Hardball Times
(73 - 11:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogBeaneball | Gold Gloves and Coco Crisp's Terrible 2014 Defense
(2 - 7:47pm, Oct 24)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(871 - 7:22pm, Oct 24)
Last: Jim Wisinski

NewsblogDealing or dueling – what’s a manager to do? | MGL on Baseball
(67 - 6:38pm, Oct 24)
Last: villageidiom

NewsblogThe ‘Little Things’ – The Hardball Times
(2 - 6:34pm, Oct 24)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

Page rendered in 0.6502 seconds
53 querie(s) executed