So far the fiscal slope talks are going according to plans. Obama appears to have thrown away his advantages and it looks like he has already gone more than halfway to a compromise that the progressive web hates while the GOP has spun off into bizzarro land and there are doubts Boehner can get the votes he needs from his caucus.

Negotiations don't have to be this way, but it seems this is how it goes. Be interesting to see what happens.

Has this thing flipped yet?

Has this thing flipped yet?

Deleted posts are the devil's tool and the first sign the Mayan's were right (although they never actually predicted what it is claimed they did, so by saying I am right I am suggesting either the world won't end or that ripping out hearts is the way to go - I report, you decide).

Yes.

#3978 The only downside is that I'm sure "jailbreak" programs would be available about 15 seconds after the announcement.

Deleted posts are the devil's tool

Going forward I might suggest simply replacing the text of offending posts with "Deleted by an administrator" to leave the counting intact.

#4000 The road network in Quebec at one time was an interesting mess. The premier (Maurice Duplessis) did not believe that major roads should go through ridings that didn't support his government.

Fiction in The New Yorker these days seems to me diverse enough that there's a winner once in a while. They're keen on overdetailed, drably realistic stories from all the world's cultures, but there are occasional stories that are more energetic and offbeat. Steven Millhauser has a couple of stories every year, George Saunders is always interesting. They need Murakami to write another spate of short stories; he is fantastic. (The story he had in The New Yorker earlier this year, "Town of Cats," was excerpted from 1Q84, though in a complicated way: cut from here and there in the novel and pasted back together very skillfully.

How has Obama thrown away his advantages?

Oh, I kind of hate to re-open the great IQ test/intelligence debate, but there's a new study (published in Neuron):

From an intro "The notion of measuring one's intelligence quotient or IQ by a singular, standardized test is highly misleading, a research team has concluded after conducting the largest online intelligence study on record. "

The results showed that when a wide range of cognitive abilities are explored, the observed variations in performance can only be explained with at least three distinct components: short-term memory, reasoning and a verbal component.

No one component, or IQ, explained everything. Furthermore, the scientists used a brain scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), to show that these differences in cognitive ability map onto distinct circuits in the brain.

With so many respondents, the results also provided a wealth of new information about how factors such as age, gender and the tendency to play computer games influence our brain function.

"Regular brain training didn't help people's cognitive performance at all yet aging had a profound negative effect on both memory and reasoning abilities," said Owen, the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Cognitive Neuroscience and Imaging and senior investigator on the project.

"Intriguingly, people who regularly played computer games did perform significantly better in terms of both reasoning and short-term memory. And smokers performed poorly on the short-term memory and the verbal factors, while people who frequently suffer from anxiety performed badly on the short-term memory factor in particular," Hampshire added.

I believe the abstract for the paper is here

Fractionating Human Intelligence:

Summary
What makes one person more intellectually able than another? Can the entire distribution of human intelligence be accounted for by just one general factor? Is intelligence supported by a single neural system? Here, we provide a perspective on human intelligence that takes into account how general abilities or “factors” reflect the functional organization of the brain. By comparing factor models of individual differences in performance with factor models of brain functional organization, we demonstrate that different components of intelligence have their analogs in distinct brain networks. Using simulations based on neuroimaging data, we show that the higher-order factor “g” is accounted for by cognitive tasks corecruiting multiple networks. Finally, we confirm the independence of these components of intelligence by dissociating them using questionnaire variables. We propose that intelligence is an emergent property of anatomically distinct cognitive systems, each of which has its own capacity.

How has Obama thrown away his advantages?

Obviously I am speaking without knowing the full facts of the negotiations and am making some assumptions, but since it is the internet...

Obama has a clear political advantage in the negotiations. I can defned that statement if you want, but that is my first assumption. A great way to use that advantage was to put forward his plan and wait for the GOP to put forward theirs, in detail.

By giving in and putting forth his plan with cuts and various concessions (by his own admission "more than halfway" between where the two parties started) he has thrown away a big chunk of his advantage to all appearance.

The great joy in making the GOP put forth their plan is the details of what they want to do are unpopular. The details of what Obama wants to do are popular (Cutting specific programs is unpopular, raising taxes on the "rich" is popular). So Obama had the advantage of making the GOP own the unpopular details if he made them put forth a detailed plan, but by putting forth his own plan with unpopular cuts he now owns those details (which the GOP won't agree to and will run against him, just like they did with the Medicare cuts that were in ObamaCare).

If you believe the GOP never wants to own the details, but would much rather keep refusing to accept the President's plan, keep demanding concessions and having Obama make the concessions and owning them and their unpopularity - then it seems like Obama is again doing what the GOP wants.

Another assumption (part of the Obama advantage) is that going over the cliff is worse for the GOP than Obama. So if they stand firm and refuse to put forth and own unpopular dfetails then off the cliff you go. But Obama really seems to want a deal, so his advantage is removed and you get this nonsense.

I am not saying going over the cliff is good, andf I recognize in any negotiation you have to give the other party enough to make it worthwhile to them - but Obama does not seem to do hardball very well and that is a bit frustrating.

Note: I would liek to point out that - as I have said before - in these deals I am usually annoyed at Obama and then weeks later as the full details come out it becomes apparent that Obama did better than most I thought. At this point I pretty much expect to hate the deal and then be impressed by the full scope of what Obama negotiated. So I am in the starting to be annoyed phase.

As per the info in the Rockwell link, gun and ammo prices have skyrocketed because of bedwetting gun nuts who panicked with Obama's first election.

Poetic justice. Lanza was a 1%, though, so it wouldn't have helped that situation.

There are always going to be murders, there are always going to people who embrace evil and want to kill lots of people. Even in the gun-lover's dream where everyone is packing, you are not going to stop all of these situations. There are plenty of ways to kill lots of people that no gun will stop. The 1927 Bath tragedy would not have been stopped by a gun.

That does not mean that we sit and do nothing. We can at least put up some roadblocks so some of the crazies and hotheads are stopped. How about some PSAs explaining the epidemic of gun deaths in the USA? One thing that needs to stop is the fetishization of guns. Crap like the Montana governor saying he doesn't own as many guns as he likes. Guns are here to stay, they are going to be used occasionally, but they are capable of killing people very easily and gun owners need to take the responsibility for what they own, not swaggering around like they own a Corvette or a new XBox.

How has Obama thrown away his advantages?

I tend to agree --

I see Boehner having the worse hand and now compounding it by trying to run a bluff that just got uncovered...

To wit -

The liberal blogosphere was going to be upset with ANY deal -- people forget that THEY want to go over the cliff just as much as the TP set does... their reasoning is less crazy, IMO -- they see it as easier to get a tax bill they like once all rates go up just by virtue any cuts, even solely allocated to under 250k, being a tax cut that the GOP would support, as opposed to more debt limit nonsense.

Taking a stand against the CPI to chained CPI is frankly - emboldened turf staking... it's basically a technical change to the calculation rate of benefit growth. It doesn't make any fundamental changes to SS - yes, it's almost certain to lead to lower benefit growth, but it doesn't undermine the program. However, they're looking to force negotiations onto their turf by aping the TP intransigence.

If they're really thinking this change is as end-times as the bloggers are typing, then they're living in a fantasy world...

However, the big tell on Boehner's side is that he's basically blown up negotiations to pass this "Plan B" -- but all accounts NOW indicate that he doesn't even have the votes to pass this Plan B... never mind that he really only wants this plan B to strengthen his hand and go back to Obama to work out a 'better' Plan A.

I think Beutler's piece this AM on all this is spot on... So Obama has floated counterproposals that the blogosphere doesn't like. whoop-t-do.

Boehner's bluff was entirely contingent on the idea that HIS counterproposal was realistic... well... now - the WH says they'd veto it, the Senate says it can't pass, and it appears the House doesn't even have the votes to pass it (just watch Pelosi play him like a fiddle... Orangina ain't getting any Dem votes to squeak this over the finish line, at least, not on his terms alone).

So where's Boehner now? He's shown his hand, it can't win, and everyone else at the table is about to raise him again because they all KNOW it can't win.

FWIW -

Boehner can afford to bleed 24 Republicans and still get his 'Plan B' passed... Last night, the whip count was at 12 GOPers bailing. This morning, I'm hearing we're already in the 20s... and he's already had to include significant Medicare cuts BEYOND the Plan B he's been touting publicly which have zero chance of even getting to the President to veto. The Hill is reporting that the GOP is reaching out to find some Dem votes - but pickings there are pretty darn slim... Why should any Democrat piss off his or her own party solely to give Boehner a lifeline in further negotiations?

He's screwed.

I'm not at all saying that this was brilliant chess by the WH -- it looks more like they simply stumbled into Boehner having an even worse hand than previously believed -- but the end result is that Boehner's bluff card is fast looking to be a dud, too.

I agree with 4012. All along I've assumed that we wouldn't get a deal in 2012. The fiscal cliff is a fiction, and nothing awful will happen on January 1 if we don't have a deal. But in January, the tax cuts expire, so Boehner will probably be able to find enough votes to agree on tax cuts to people making under $400K or something along with some other stuff about the debt ceiling and spending cuts. That way they won't have voted for a tax increase by voting in favor of the repeal of the Bush tax cuts in any way, shape, or form. It's all silly semantics, but I think that approach will be far more palatable to most republicans.

The current negotiations are mostly theater.

I agree with 4012. All along I've assumed that we wouldn't get a deal in 2012. The fiscal cliff is a fiction, and nothing awful will happen on January 1 if we don't have a deal. But in January, the tax cuts expire, so Boehner will probably be able to find enough votes to agree on tax cuts to people making under $400K or something along with some other stuff about the debt ceiling and spending cuts. That way they won't have voted for a tax increase by voting in favor of the repeal of the Bush tax cuts in any way, shape, or form. It's all silly semantics, but I think that approach will be far more palatable to most republicans.

The current negotiations are mostly theater.

Here's the thing that I don't understand from the GOP perspective, though... well - I guess I know Boehner realizes this, but his caucus and party faithful don't seem to --

Yes, the GOP will still have control of the 113th House... but his cushion goes from 25 to 17... and while yes, a few jackasses like West and Walsh are gone - there are still plenty of Team Intransigent around to make that even smaller number a more risky proposition for him.

In the current lame duck, Boehner can afford two dozen TPers tossing a fit... Come January, he can no longer afford two dozen -- he'd need some Dem votes to start covering those losses... and here's where Pelosi/Hoyer's much tighter and better control of their caucus comes into play. That 113th is ALSO going to have even fewer Blue Dog types. 4 years ago, there were probably a dozen Dems the GOP might be able to peal away.... in 2010, there might have been 6-8... Now, come January? I doubt it's even 5.

This means that any legislation that needs a few Dem votes to get over the finish line is almost going to REQUIRE Boehner to negotiate with Dem house leadership. I'm not saying Boehner will be delivering goodies to Pelosi in return for 50-75-etc votes -- but there will be a lot of proxy negotiations where House Dem leadership tacitly gives permission for a dozen or so Democrats to break ranks and help Boehner get things 218.

...and that's before we even get to the Senate - which is now MORE blue, MORE liberal, and also seriously looking at some meaningful filibuster reform.

I agree that we're seeing a lot of theater right now - but earlier this week, I DID think that we were going to see a deal because I figured someone had reminded the GOP that while chamber controls remained status quo, the margins shifted relatively significantly towards the Democrats.

What do they say in poker? The size of your stack matters as much as the cards? Well, the GOP's stack is about to get smaller.

I like what I have seen from Obama. If the hard left is not upset with the deal then I think it's a failure (I am assuming the hard right will be upset no matter what), as any reasonable change WILL impact programs or entitlements that the left would prefer not be touched.

So where's Boehner now? He's shown his hand, it can't win, and everyone else at the table is about to raise him again because they all KNOW it can't win.

I do think Obama outmaneuvered Boehner here, Obama presented a conciliatory package and Boehner couldn't match it - whether it was hubris and overestimating his power, failure to listen to the masses, or against the creed of his party, he is now undoubtedly no longer in the passenger seat, he has been shuttled to the back, right now he probably is in the terrible middle-hump seat.

The current negotiations are mostly theater.

I'm glad to see someone else say that who is, at least in my opinion, not as cynical and biased about government as I am. By now I assume a deal is mostly done, and both sides are just posturing to see if they can get a little more via popular public pandering, at the same time both men get to appear they are doing something.

Boehner's problem is that he can't get the votes to pass any kind of bill other than full extension from exclusively Republicans. That's it full stop. His policy has been to use majority majority legislation: that is, to only place bills for a vote that have a majority from the majority. He will be unable to do that. Since he has developed no relationships with house D's (indeed, Pelosi has been very careful to prevent that), this makes him unable to lose defectors.

I think a bill ends up at 500K, with a raise in capital gains and some modest stimulus measures like unemployment. It appears O is not willing to fight for the payroll tax plan, but instead prefers to come at it from another angle.

O is a pretty decent negotiator given that he doesn't want to go over the cliff either.

I do think Obama outmaneuvered Boehner here, Obama presented a conciliatory package and Boehner couldn't match it - whether it was hubris and overestimating his power, failure to listen to the masses, or against the creed of his party, he is now undoubtedly no longer in the passenger seat, he has been shuttled to the back, right now he probably is in the terrible middle-hump seat.

You may be right -- Josh Marshall has said pretty much the same thing this morning:

Brian Beutler’s got a great piece about how John Boehner’s ‘Plan B’ just seemed to totally blow up the fiscal cliff negotiations. There are so many different angles to go with this — one is, how is this good for Boehner or the GOP? He throws down the gauntlet and tells Obama: ‘I’m going to get my caucus to vote for a tax increase that will never actually become law and bogart all the blame for going over the fiscal cliff?’ Really?

But the real issue here probably comes down to Boehner’s weakness, institutional and personal. It’s a question the White House has had from the beginning and suspects the worst on — that John Boehner can’t actually deliver any deal, almost no matter what’s included in it. Someone on Twitter just called him the rodeo clown of conservative politics, which about captures it.

At the risk of offending everyone, do the Dems need to accept that Boehner’s an Abbas-like figure in this negotiation and to really get a deal they need to bite the bullet and open negotiations with Hamas?

Now... I think I'm relatively close to an Obama fanboy - but that's more because I generally prefer technocratic compromisers in my political leaders than I do dogmatic ideologues. I don't know/think I'm personally quite the level of dogmatic ideologue, but I do think my core positions on certain matters are more recalcitrant and uncompromising than they are for Obama (Medicare eligibility age for one, certain core fundamentals on entitlements -- like a steadfast opposition to means testing, for another). I'm not saying that Obama doesn't care about those things - I'm just saying that he's more likely than I to say "everything's negotiable" for the right deal.

I guess what I'm saying - I don't know that I buy that Obama called Boehner's bluff, so much as Boehner's bluff just blew up (or appears to be in the process of blowing up) in his face.

i want to believe that the speaker was using this route to show his caucus how the public and the markets would respond to a lesser deal or no deal.

again, the speaker has a good number in his caucus who do not understand how a modern economy operates and that a lack of faith in the government to effectively govern is a real piece of that equation.

I just finished Pygmy by Chuck Palahniuk. It might vaguely be described as a cross between A Clockwork Orange and American Psycho.

i want to believe that the speaker was using this route to show his caucus how the public and the markets would respond to a lesser deal or no deal.

again, the speaker has a good number in his caucus who do not understand how a modern economy operates and that a lack of faith in the government to effectively govern is a real piece of that equation.

I don't know...

Based on the method that it got publicly touted and the way that the 'Plan B' legislation has been furiously modified to try to get something passed, it seems like an awful lot of work is going into such a specifically targeted dog-n-pony show solely for the illumination of a few dozen House members.

At this point -- I think that perhaps the biggest question is exactly what that "good number" is...

Is it 20? Is it 50? Is it 10?

If it's 50, then show's over... If it's 20 - well, then things get dicey because as I said above -- 20 now is quite different than 20 in January. Boehner can tell 20 now to #### off... at least, without needing D votes to cover. Come January - he can't tell 20 to take a hike without needing at least a handful of Dem votes to cover them.

i want to believe that the speaker was using this route to show his caucus how the public and the markets would respond to a lesser deal or no deal.

I'm actually in slight agreement with you. I do think that there is some hubris on Boehner's part to play this hand, but I do think that there is some strategy to letting Reps argue amongst themselves on what they know is probably a losing cause. Once they can vote and get over the reality that the public just isn't with them on this, Boehner can cut a deal with Dems and keep his job because the less insane faction part of his party realizes that he just has no choice at this point. I'm hoping.

Woodford is really a good bourbon. In that price range I like Blanton's better but I would absolutely take a drink of Woodford's right now if I could. Neat.

It's now a very widely available bourbon so it's not going to win you conversational points the way some small-batch find would, but in terms of drinking purposes, it is more than adequate.

Hey Al now they are taking about Borbon. I have some favrites that I can only get at Miss DeMineur's Wine and Liquor in Terre Haute. Have you had them Al.

1. Old Overcoat
2. Eau de Bowa
3. Cincinnati Sump Pump
4. Delirium Tremendous
5. Sour Mash Potatoes

i have a bottle of woodford reserve on my desk at this moment. given i am old with no obligations of watching children or driving i will now have a glass

I'm actually in slight agreement with you. I do think that there is some hubris on Boehner's part to play this hand, but I do think that there is some strategy to letting Reps argue amongst themselves on what they know is probably a losing cause. Once they can vote and get over the reality that the public just isn't with them on this, Boehner can cut a deal with Dems and keep his job because the less insane faction part of his party realizes that he just has no choice at this point. I'm hoping.

By Dems - do you mean Senate/Obama, or, some small subset of House Dems?

The problem right now is that it's looking more and more like he actually needs House Democrats to get anything done.

I'm not advocating that the Democrats ape TP intransigence, but right now -- Boehner is tossing in goodies to get more Republican votes... I think it's entirely fair to say that he needs to go in the other direction if he has to settle for Democratic votes.

It's unreasonable to expect the House Dems to basically sign onto something that keeps moving further and further from their preference.

I'm not expecting the world - but Boehner wants to move forward with the idea that he'll need 10-20-30 House Dems to pass anything, well, then he'll need deliver some 5%/10%/etc worth of preferences to the left. I completely understand this makes life even more miserable for Boehner (i.e., move a bill left to get 20 D votes, do you lose 10 more GOP votes? 20?) -- but tough ####.

Again, I'm not demanding Democratic intransigence here -- but it's completely illogical to expect that the Democrats alone have to play martyr.

If Boehner wants to create a solid bloc of say... 150-200 republicans he can count on for legislation - well, then he needs to give the Democrats concessions worth those 20-70 votes he'd still need to pass something.

Woodford is really a good bourbon. In that price range I like Blanton's better but I would absolutely take a drink of Woodford's right now if I could. Neat.

i have a bottle of woodford reserve on my desk at this moment. given i am old with no obligations of watching children or driving i will now have a glass

Have any of you had Pappy van Winkle? Is it worth the cost and/or seeking it out compared to, say, a Woodford or Makers type?

famous

yes. i have several bottles of varying age

it is very good though i am surprised at the cult following of late

zonk

the speaker needs a majority of his caucus just to bring legislation to the floor for a vote

zonk

the speaker needs a majority of his caucus just to bring legislation to the floor for a vote

Well, technically -- he doesn't... he only does if we accept the idea that it's suicide for him to bring a bill to the floor that requires X number of Democratic votes to pass (regardless of whether he's got the cooperative whip count prior to putting a bill up for the vote or not).

Boehner can put any bill up for a vote that he personally wants to put up for a vote...

In effect, either it's a "House bill" -- or -- it's a "House Republican bill"... Since the Republicans have the majority, they can certainly make it a "House Republican bill" (but House Republican bills still require Senate Democrat Bill votes and Democratic President signatures).

Obviously, I've got no role or influence with House Democratic leadership - but if I did, I'd say to Boehner that I'd be willing to "help"... but that means "we" (the D House caucus) gets a seat at the table, too... and yes - with the understanding that it's very much a junior seat that gets crumbs, not the main course.

In short - either it's Boehner's problem that he and he alone needs to solve, or, he needs to look at other solutions.

Under the majority of the majority doctrine the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill to take place unless the majority of the majority party supports the bill

the speaker is already twisting arms. i don't see him going lbj and flouting rules outright

FWIW...

Cantor says we'll have the votes on the Plan B.

Interestingly, though - future tense "we WILL have"... meaning, don't right now. Maybe Cantor's right, but I really have to wonder...

We shall see... Vote slated for Thursday night.

I do want to be clear here -- the Plan B Boehner has been touting is not the Plan B he went public with earlier in the week... it's already been gussied up to move further away from the compromise he floated previously.

Under the majority of the majority doctrine the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill to take place unless the majority of the majority party supports the bill

the speaker is already twisting arms. i don't see him going lbj and flouting rules outright

AHhh... OK - I misread.

You're saying that he needs minimum 51% of his own caucus? Sure, sure -- I take that as a given.

I think the question is more does need 218 Republicans, or, does he just need something between 125 and 200 Republicans (i.e., a majority of his caucus, but NOT enough to just pass the bill without some Democratic Ayes).

Like I said - I'm fine with something that passes slimly at with say... 220 votes -- say, 180 GOP/40 Democratic Yes vs 60 GOP/160 Dem No.

To me, though - that doesn't seem to be what he's pursuing... He seems to be pursuing something that can pass with solely Republican votes... which he can certainly do, as any party with a majority can. But then - it's all on him and his caucus.

If he goes that route, then as a House Democrat - I say not one single vote... I whip the hell out of my caucus and say if he wants even one Democratic vote, then he needs to provide at least one Democratic vote's worth of concessions.

zonk

if cantor is involved then he's come out from under his rock to sabotage the speaker publicly.

this may mean that cantor is not going to pursue being governor or senator from virginia. it was thought these aspirations were what the speaker had to keep cantor from being cantor. that a larger goal would cause him to act like a politician who would make a deal when a deal was needed.

Under the majority of the majority doctrine the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill to take place unless the majority of the majority party supports the bill

So, if I understand this correctly, a bill can be supported by upwards of 70% of the house and not be able to come to a vote if that 30% of Nos belong to the party with a slim majority?

misir

that is correct.

misir

that is correct.

Maybe in real life things don't work out so neatly, a compromise is usually reached, arms are, as you say, twisted. But on paper, that seems more powerful than the cloture rule in the Senate. A majority of the majority, which can be theoretically as small as 25. 5% of the whole, can block legislation.

misir

this is one of many reasons why the amount of legislation coming out of congress has dropped dramatically. the power of the minority between the senate filibuster and this rule has never been greater.

i do not find the reduced pace of passed legislation disheartening

but i did want to share the facts

Maybe in real life things don't work out so neatly, a compromise is usually reached, arms are, as you say, twisted. But on paper, that seems more powerful than the cloture rule in the Senate. A majority of the majority, which can be theoretically as small as 25. 5% of the whole, can block legislation.

I don't think that math is quite right...

"Majority of the majority" means a majority of the 255 (current, lame duck) House Republicans... meaning - it would require 123 No's. 123 Yes' would pass the majority of majority test, but then also require another 93 Democratic yes votes to actually pass the House.

I wouldn't expect any House majority leader to bring a vote on any legislation not backed by a majority of his own caucus. That's clearly suicide.

The question is more whether we're in the world of 218 Republican yes votes period... or -- ~200 GOP yes votes + 18 Democratic votes.

Do note - my numbers are slightly off because I think there are, at present, a couple vacancies... but that's the general thrust.

Under the majority of the majority doctrine the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives will not allow a vote on a bill to take place unless the majority of the majority party supports the bill

This isn't an actual rule. Bills, including budgets, get to the floor by being passed through the relevant committees. In the case of the budget, it's the House Committee on the Budget, or some boring/obvious name like that. I think there are like 35-40 members.

In theory, if enough members of the committee went rogue, you could get a bill to the floor. I'm not sure what powers the Speaker himself would have to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote if it got through committee. There are likely all kinds of shenanigans that could go on, but of course the only bills that get through committee are the ones the majority party wants to get through committee.

Edit: To be clear, this is a rule of thumb the Speaker of the House likely follows because getting half+1 of your party's votes every time you bring something to the floor to be voted on is a good way to keep your job as Speaker.

I don't think that math is quite right...

Well, I was speaking hypothetically, not about this particular makeup. If a party held the slimmest possible majority, 218 to 217, then 110 of that 218 could block legislation. 110/435 = 25.3%. So, yeah, my math was a little off : )

In theory, if enough members of the committee went rogue, you could get a bill to the floor. I'm not sure what powers the Speaker himself would have to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote if it got through committee. There are likely all kinds of shenanigans that could go on, but of course the only bills that get through committee are the ones the majority party wants to get through committee.

That's the maneuver Pelosi attempted on the previously passed Senate version of 'Plan B' -- a raw majority of the House can force anything to the floor... but I think they fell about 20 votes short.

steve

this is how the house majority is operating and if the speaker tried to do otherwise he would be buried by his own party.

i cannot find a reference explicitly stating that this is 'the rule' but it is well established as the practice

i cannot find a reference explicitly stating that this is 'the rule' but it is well established as the practice

Yes. See my edit. In practice, you're right. But in terms of the actual House Rules, it's not an actual rule.

I'm not expecting the world - but Boehner wants to move forward with the idea that he'll need 10-20-30 House Dems to pass anything, well, then he'll need deliver some 5%/10%/etc worth of preferences to the left. I completely understand this makes life even more miserable for Boehner (i.e., move a bill left to get 20 D votes, do you lose 10 more GOP votes? 20?) -- but tough ####.

Again, I'm not demanding Democratic intransigence here -- but it's completely illogical to expect that the Democrats alone have to play martyr.

QFT. If you can't keep your house in order then you need to move a bit to get the other team to vote for you. If by moving you lose more of yours than you gain of theirs then there may not be a possible compromise and over the "cliff" we go.

From a game theory and political perspective the whole thing is pretty fun to watch.

Well, I was speaking hypothetically, not about this particular makeup. If a party held the slimmest possible majority, 218 to 217, then 110 of that 218 could block legislation. 110/435 = 25.3%. So, yeah, my math was a little off : )

Oops - no - that was just bad reading comprehension on my part... I was reading "5%" -- not "25%"...

Again, that's a perfectly standard by my account. By definition, the majority controls the slate... or at least, should - so I find it perfectly reasonable that a "majority of the majority" ought to support virtually anything that gets a vote.

My beef is more with the idea that something that would get, say... 180 GOP votes wouldn't come to the floor because it would require 40 Dem votes. Of course, I don't know that's the case here -- I'm just operating off the idea that it seems Boehner will only bring something to the floor that can pass the House in total solely with GOP votes.

BTW - Reid just responded and said Plan B can't even make it to the Senate floor... It's unclear whether he means "can't" because he won't let or can't because it won't get 60 votes.

...thus, making House Plan B a show pony in its entirety.

Have any of you had Pappy van Winkle?

I'm still holding on to a bottle of Goose Island's Bourbon County Rare Stout. It's their regular Bourbon County Stout, but aged for two years in 23 year old Pappy Van Winkle barrels. The regular BCS (which is still difficult to find) is aged for eight months in Heaven Hill barrels. It's pretty awesome stuff. About 15% ABV. Never had actual Pappy though.

The regular BCS (which is still difficult to find) is aged for eight months in Heaven Hill barrels. It's pretty awesome stuff. About 15% ABV.

A few years ago the Goose Island brewpubs made ice cream floats with the Bourbon County Stout and vanilla ice cream. Never in the history of human endeavor has anything so wrong been so right.

Have any of you had Pappy van Winkle? Is it worth the cost and/or seeking it out compared to, say, a Woodford or Makers type?

It's great. I don't think the cost is (or at least was) unreasonable, but it's so ridiculously hard to find right now that it may very well not be worth the effort to get a bottle.

Immaculate Reception


Just to take a break from the politcal stuff, for Pittsburgh fans Dec 23rd will mark the 40 year anniversary of the Immaculate Reception and Dec 31st will be the 40 year anniversary of Roberto Clemente's death.

Immaculate Reception

This part is odd:

One of the greatest moments of this documentary is during a clip of former Raiders linebacker Phil Villapiano sharing that every year on Dec. 23, John Franco calls him to remind him of the anniversary of this play.

I assume he means Franco Harris, but it is an interesting mistake.

I assume he means Franco Harris, but it is an interesting mistake.

It would actually be all kinds of awesome if John Franco was really doing it, just to be a Richard for no particular reason.

Hi-larious -

House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) said on Thursday that the reason so-called fiscal cliff negotiations have stalled is that President Obama is having some trouble standing up to his own party on entitlement cuts. "I'm convinced the president is unwilling to stand up to his own party," Boehner said at a press conference on Capitol Hill."

I've been lying in wait for this thread to shift from politics to bourbon. My day is made.

Anyway--I just bought the second non-Kentucky bourbon I've ever purchased--Breckenridge, from Colorado. It's quite good, if mild by bourbon standards--in stark contrast to the other non-Kentucky bourbon I tried: Cedar Ridge, from Cedar Rapids, Iowa, which was just poor. That stuff tasted and looked....young, to put it nicely. It probably met the definitional bourbon requirements re aging, but only barely.

Pappy van Winkle is offered in a million different ages, but I've never had a bad one.

Also--for those who like their beer a little (or a lot) bourbonny, I love the Kentucky Bourbon Barrel Ale from the horribly named Alltech's Distillery in Lexington. (It's almost dessertish.)

I assume he means Franco Harris, but it is an interesting mistake.

Well, it's Bleacher Report.

Latest whip count on plan B is 12 firm/on the record No's, 25 GOPers on the fence, and 3 squishy 'probablies'...

In effect - Boehner needs half of those 25 toss-ups (and keep all the squishies in line, which I presume he would).

There are supposedly three Dem maybes -- interestingly, one of them is Dennis Kucinich.... So Boehner might be able to do it with just 11 of those 25 toss-ups, but I have real doubts that any Dem would make himself/herself the deciding vote on a measure that is merely for show/ain't getting through the Senate.

Another interesting tell...

FreedomWorks, the TP outfit, had originally backed passage of 'Plan B'... but has just issued a new statement saying that upon 'thorough reading' of the legislation, they now OPPOSE it and are urging House Republicans to vote no.

FW has some turmoil of late - the messy Armey of Dicks... excuse me, Dick Armey breakup -- and they were always more of an astroturf than grassroots outfit, but I do wonder what that means.

Club for Growth and Heritage have been urging "no" votes consistently since the start.

I think Boehner got Norquist to bless Plan B as "not a pledge breaker" -- but with FW gone, I don't think the Speaker has anyone left on the lobbying/'grassroots' end of things behind him.

Portend something? Or just FW preserving the right to ##### and moan regardless?

Yeah I watched the "A Football Life" episode that featured the Immaculate reception and it was Franco Harris. Not only that but apparently he has a statue if him making the catch in the airport and there is a sports museum that shows the play on a loop.

I don't usually recommend motivational speakers, but if you get a chance to spend $300 for a few minutes of Suzy Favor Hamilton's time, I can promise you that you'll come out of the encounter satisfied.

hehehe...

This is funny - as I'm not sure exactly why they're getting involved (nor why anyone SHOULD care, but I'm sure plenty do) -- but the Family Research Council (Tony Perkins/James Dobsons shop... the moral majority folks) have ALSO just issued a release urging a NO vote on Plan B. Maybe they're just confused that this has nothing to do with the morning after pill known by the similar name?

It's humorous except for the fact that their acolytes/membership do tend to be the types who actually DO call congress when the bat signal goes out -- and they did explicitly tell their members to do specifically that.

This is one of those days where I probably would feel sorry for even GOP congressional interns ;-)

non-Kentucky bourbon

I rarely drink whiskey (I know, I'm that interesting), but had some Hudson Whiskey bourbon last summer in New York. Expensive but highly recommendable.

Lots of connections to politics here, of course: spirituous liquors have been a point of huge political contention over the years, from the London Gin Riots to the Whiskey Rebellion to temperance movements that possibly hastened the fall of both the Romanovs and Gorbachev.

Incoming state Rep. Kyle Kacal, R-Texas, will not support any gun control measures in Texas because people need their guns “to be safe,” and, besides, “ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns.”

“People know what they need to do to be safe. We don’t need to legislate that — it’s common sense,” Kacal said, according to The Eagle. “Once everyone’s gun is locked up, then the bad guys know everyone’s gun is locked up.”

“I’ve heard of people being killed playing ping-pong — ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns,” he added. “Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything.”

“I’ve heard of people being killed playing ping-pong — ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns,” he added. “Flat-screen TVs are injuring more kids today than anything.”

Where does the GOP find these people, and more importantly, how have they survived into adulthood?

"Intriguingly, people who regularly played computer games did perform significantly better in terms of both reasoning and short-term memory. And smokers performed poorly on the short-term memory and the verbal factors, while people who frequently suffer from anxiety performed badly on the short-term memory factor in particular," Hampshire added.

It's kind of weird that the researcher found this intriguing. Video games generally require a lot more problem-solving and critical thinking than, say, watching a television. Many of the best video game require a great deal of creative thinking and an ability to critically weigh the benefits and risks of many differing approaches. The typical game is no longer jumping a plumber over barrels in order to rescue a girl from a gorilla.

It's kind of weird that the researcher found this intriguing. Video games generally require a lot more problem-solving and critical thinking than, say, watching a television. Many of the best video game require a great deal of creative thinking and an ability to critically weigh the benefits and risks of many differing approaches. The typical game is no longer jumping a plumber over barrels in order to rescue a girl from a gorilla.

Yeah, but you've got to understand how much effort psychologists have expended trying to reduce the sole effect of video games to violent behavior. People like Steve Johnson, J.P. Gee and (to a lesser extent) Tom Bissell have been making the cognitive development case around games for a while now, but I'm not sure how much their arguments are reaching people in psychology/cog science. Those sorts of deeply-engrained disciplinary prejudices are difficult to displace.

yes. i have several bottles of varying age

it is very good though i am surprised at the cult following of late

This is why I asked. There's all this hullabaloo around it, but I've never tried it. I only generally drink bourbon or scotch in the cold months (gin in the spring, tequila through the summer), and I'm more of a beer drinker to boot, so I don't go through more than a few bottles a year.

Video games generally require a lot more problem-solving and critical thinking than, say, watching a television.

I'm (mostly) ashamed to admit I relearned some multivariate calculus to help me play better in a game.

Video games generally require a lot more problem-solving and critical thinking than, say, watching a television.


I'm (mostly) ashamed to admit I relearned some multivariate calculus to help me play better in a game.

What game was this?

Video games generally require a lot more problem-solving and critical thinking than, say, watching a television.



I'm (mostly) ashamed to admit I relearned some multivariate calculus to help me play better in a game.

Heh...

Despite working in XML for a living, I am absolutely certain that I've learned more about schema architecture - especially from a practical perspective - from modding Civ4 than I have professionally.

I wonder if it's too late to amend my early aught tax returns to deduct Civ as a professional development expense?

Hudson is pretty good. I'm curious though not too optimistic about the Kings County and Breucklin ones.

I only had Pappy VW a couple of times; thought it was fine but didn't blow me away. Not sure what age, and I may not have the best taste.

Ky Bourbon Ale is awesome, and they have an imperial on tap that's terrific. I also had a good Bronx Bourbon Ale at a beer tasting not long ago but don't know if they market it yet.

Despite working in XML for a living, I am absolutely certain that I've learned more about schema architecture - especially from a practical perspective - from modding Civ4 than I have professionally.

This is not surprising. I tend to learn a more in general about software development from spending a few free hours here and there working on a simple game than I do in my 9-5 world.

I'm (mostly) ashamed to admit I relearned some multivariate calculus to help me play better in a game.

This is surprising though.

'm (mostly) ashamed to admit I relearned some multivariate calculus to help me play better in a game.

I've used technical analysis with auction houses in MMOs. I'm still surprised I didn't get disciplined in Final Fantasy XI - once one recognized the day/night/weekday/weeknight patterns and how players behaved, you could literally increase or decrease the going price of pretty much anything for a few days before things corrected themselves.

Hudson is pretty good. I'm curious though not too optimistic about the Kings County and Breucklin ones.

I don't think Brueckelen's whisky has aged enough to compete with top brands. However, their gin is outstanding mixed; not crazy about it in a martini, bit too vegetal for that. The owner is a really nice guy too, or was when I met him.

People like Steve Johnson, J.P. Gee and (to a lesser extent) Tom Bissell have been making the cognitive development case around games for a while now, but I'm not sure how much their arguments are reaching people in psychology/cog science. Those sorts of deeply-engrained disciplinary prejudices are difficult to displace.

You mean people sometimes allow biases and prejudices to impact their work?

“I’ve heard of people being killed playing ping-pong — ping-pongs are more dangerous than guns,” he added.

How many people died from ping pong deaths last year?

Answer: 7 and a half. One person was severely injured and barely survived after multiple visits to the hospital.

I'm wondering if that was from the result of the match, or from actual ping-pong balls.

You mean people sometimes allow biases and prejudices to impact their work?

Just look at Nate Silver. He had to get unskewed and everything.

How many people died from ping pong deaths last year?

Funny and not at all surprising. And seriously "ping-pongs" is not even a thing. Sigh.

I don't think Brueckelen's whisky has aged enough to compete with top brands. However, their gin is outstanding mixed; not crazy about it in a martini, bit too vegetal for that. The owner is a really nice guy too, or was when I met him.

Have you done the tour at either Breuckelen or Kings County? Worth doing?

George Saunders is always interesting exactly the same

FTFY

I know of no more overrated author than George Saunders. The man has written one story nine hundred times, and because it was kind of odd the first time, people persist in acting as though he is just full of wild, amazing ideas.

(Reuters) - When Irish gun entrepreneur Robert McNamara learned of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting, his immediate reaction, like that of most people, was one of horror, shock and sadness. But there was something else, too.
"I was literally pulling my hair out," McNamara said. "I thought, we have a technology that could have helped prevent that massacre."
That technology places a radio chip in a gun handle and a corresponding chip on a ring or bracelet or even implanted in an authorized shooter's hand, McNamara said. If the two chips are not within an inch or two of each other, the trigger will not unlock.
The concept, which McNamara's company, TriggerSmart, patented this spring, is a fresh take on a smart gun technology that has been studied and promoted for two decades but has been stubbornly stuck at the prototype phase.

The future is a gun that is hard to sell on the secondary market.

You mean people sometimes allow biases and prejudices to impact their work?

Always with the trolling, never with the learning.

In case you're interested in serious answer: disciplinary biases can and do influence what sorts of questions get asked about a subject, what studies get funded, ect. On this specific subject, for a couple of decades, the only field studying video games with any degree of seriousness was psychology, but they were asking a very limited set of questions about them. I think we're past that point, but people in psychology who aren't up on the recent literature will continue to carry forward the assumptions they formed about them before studies started focusing on cognition, which might explain the choice of "intriguingly" in the quoted article.

In a lot of ways, OMG LIBRUL MEDIA BIAS! and OMG VIDEO GAMES MAKING THE CHILDRUNZZ VIOLENT KILLERZ! are kindred theses, in that a ton of money has been poured into trying to prove both, with nothing remotely resembling a conclusive validation.

#4076 It's kind of like people asserting that cricket is more dangerous than football or MMA or ...

The injury rate is higher (if one doesn't count MMA injuries in practice. Approximately 105% of all MMA athletes are dealing with one or more injuries at any given moment), but the really nasty ones are relatively uncommon in cricket.

4075. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 20, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4329533)

You mean people sometimes allow biases and prejudices to impact their work?

You got that right.

The injury rate is higher (if one doesn't count MMA injuries in practice. Approximately 105% of all MMA athletes are dealing with one or more injuries at any given moment), but the really nasty ones are relatively uncommon in cricket.

I would assume a lot of cricket injuries would be finger related?

Though I'm told high-speed bowling is hard on the back long-term.

On a related note I'm probably joining a cricket club this summer! I've never actually played (aside from one nets session), so I'm looking forward to an ill-advised adventure.

Have you done the tour at either Breuckelen or Kings County? Worth doing?

No, ran into the Brueckelen guy at a liquor store. Dunno what the tour's like, but assuming you're interested in that kind of thing, I'd be surprised if it wasn't worthwhile. I think it's free, so if it sucks you can always just wander off.

No, ran into the Brueckelen guy at a liquor store. Dunno what the tour's like, but assuming you're interested in that kind of thing, I'd be surprised if it wasn't worthwhile. I think it's free, so if it sucks you can always just wander off.

The Jameson distillery in Dublin is a fun tour. Espeically if you take the early-bird one at around 10:30-11. Not a big crowd so the "complimentary drink, plus a tasting of Jameson v. Johnnie Walker v. Jack Daniels" at the end of the tour turns into "can someone finish off all this booze please?"

Srul! Boychick, good news from the front! Our Zionist War on Christmas is progressing nicely.

When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists and the largely Jewish funded ACLU at the forefront.

The goyim, they think they know our plans, but they are merely the schmucks of the shtetl.

This is why I asked. There's all this hullabaloo around it, but I've never tried it.

PVW is a classic case example of pricing your product absurdly high and then touting the price of your product as proof that it's a luxury quality good. Not to say PVW isn't a good bourbon; it is. But the $125/bottle ask is way over the top even for the long-aged bottles.

Srul! Boychick, good news from the front! Our Zionist War on Christmas is progressing nicely.

s'okay. Just wait til we get you lot back into Greater Israel.

In case you're interested in serious answer: disciplinary biases can and do influence what sorts of questions get asked about a subject, what studies get funded, ect.

But how does this happen? I've been told that personal and institutional biases in the media rarely if ever "influence what sorts of questions get asked about a subject," what stories get written, etc.

And if such biases and prejudices have been identified, why do they persist? Are academics and researchers less intelligent and/or less principled than members of the media?

I'm told high-speed bowling is hard on the back long-term.

I expect that any form of bowling is tough on the knees. At least that's how it looks to me.

The U.S. economy grew faster than previously estimated in the third quarter as exports and government spending provided a lift, but that boost is likely to be lost amid slowing global demand and a move towards tighter fiscal policy.

A separate report showed weekly jobless claims rose slightly more than expected. Weekly jobless claims rose to 361,000 in the latest week. Claims has been expected to rise to 357,000, from 343,000 the prior week.

Gross domestic product expanded at a 3.1 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said in its third estimate on Thursday, up from the 2.7 percent pace reported last month.

It was the fastest growth since late 2011 and also reflected a slightly better pace of consumer spending than previously estimated.

If such biases and prejudices have been identified, why do they persist? Are academics and researchers less intelligent and/or less principled than members of the media?

This would be an interesting question if asked in an attempt to truly understand bias and how things work, sadly ...

This would be an interesting question if asked in an attempt to truly understand bias and how things work, sadly ...

Yes, it's much easier to just label dissent as "trolling" and move on.

PVW is a classic case example of pricing your product absurdly high and then touting the price of your product as proof that it's a luxury quality good. Not to say PVW isn't a good bourbon; it is. But the $125/bottle ask is way over the top even for the long-aged bottles.

Actually, the classic case is seats within the New Yankee Stadium moat, but I hear you.

There are a couple of easy tech fixes that should be integrated into guns to make them more safe.

1) The chip technology- This is harder, but doable.
2) Making the safety much more obvious and automatic. It should be orange and on the back of a gun, so everyone knows it is on.
3) removing the clip should disable the trigger. Too many times, a gun owner forgets the round in the chamber and hurts themselves or others.

#4089 Tough competition in that range. You can't buy the best cognac for $125 a bottle, but you can get some really good ones. Likewise you can't get the very best scotch but they are basically going head to head with Macallan 15 and that's awfully tough competition.

EDIT: Just for giggles I checked LCBO. The most expensive whiskey they have is a "GLENFIDDICH 50 YEARS OLD SPEYSIDE SINGLE MALT" -- coming in at a mere $26,000 (but it's Canadian money. YTou should be good with a few sets of Monopoly)

Dunno. I suppose if I won the lottery big time I might consider it.

Yes, it's much easier to just label dissent as "trolling" and move on.

Where did I say you were trolling? I never did, must be your bias I guess.

Are academics and researchers less intelligent and/or less principled than members of the media?

Is that an attempt at a serious question because there are multiple examples of past scientists coming out with theories only to have others tear their work to pieces for other than professional reasons?