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, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

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 60 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 >  Last ›
   5901. DA Baracus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4298153)
"President Obama succeeded by suppressing the vote."

Karl Rove should get a prescription from Charles Krauthammer.
   5902. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:25 PM (#4298154)
Actually, that was me, Ray. And I couldn't stomach the whole list of comments. I stopped reading at

Seccession of leave. I say we've got two to three years left before they start rounding up dissenters and sending us off to Nazi-style concentration camps. I've got a little more time, cause I live in Texas.

Arizona is a good place to be for now. But New York, Iowa, Michigan, Massachusetts, PA beware. You're vastly on the road to complete authoritarianism and statism. Grab your guns, protect what few things you have left. You're living in Nazi Germany circa 1933-34.
   5903. Dale Sams Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4298155)
Quick chime-in: have we talked about important issues like keeping more people behind bars than any other country? The highest military budget by some five times? Land of the free home of the brave indeed. Or has it all been small-minded schadenfreude over what some washed-up d lister said today?
   5904. canadian shield Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:27 PM (#4298156)
There's really no way around it - hating science is hating America. We didn't beat the Russians to the moon because we outprayed them.


Slow clap
   5905. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4298158)
"President Obama succeeded by suppressing the vote."


It's funny to me what people on both sides have taken from this. Democrats feel it is overwhelming support for their ideas and an overwhelming rejection of Republican/conservative ideas. Republicans feel that Obama "suppressed the vote" and thus are in denial about how many people really do support Obama's policies.

Look: The country is basically split down the middle right now, for all practical purposes. Sometimes the balance tips to Democrats, sometimes it tips to Republicans. Denying this seems silly.

EDITed to state what I wanted more clearly.
   5906. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4298160)
Eric Dondero said...

I disowned them this morning. On Facebook and through an email. But fortunately my parents are diehard Republicans, and a sister. It's only the ###### up brother in Delaware, piece of ####, scumbag mother ###### who is a Democrat, and another sister in Philly who won't tell me, but I'm almost certain voted for Obama.

They are dead to me now. And I will not under any circumstances attend their funerals in 30 or 40 years.

Harsh, but a reality.


So... was this not reasonable? Should he not have done that?

Well, obviously it depends on whether or not he knew that it was frowned upon.
   5907. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4298161)
Dale: I consider items like the ones you mention frequently--I share them on Facebook and Twitter and sometimes here. And I'm not sure discussing Mr. Dondero is small-minded. There are others like him that want another revolution.
   5908. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4298162)
Actually, that was me, Ray. And I couldn't stomach the whole list of comments.


For those that have not read the source article it is ... something. It doesn't at all reflect the GOP or really anyone or anything, except some dude and his internet friends that I feel kind of bad for (for whom I feel bad? Anyway).

But it is interesting reading.

EDIT: And I like how it is some terrible fate to be unfriended by this dude. Breaking news they probably have you on ignore by this point.
   5909. Dale Sams Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:30 PM (#4298163)
Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?

*Murder, yes. Ordering the assasination of a 16 year old American is conspiricy to murder. You can't even hide behind 'war crimes' with that. He's got a kill list and he told people to kill 16 year old Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. That is not collateral damage or a war-time casualty. That's murder of a 16 year old whose only crime was to be the son of a man killed two weeks before he was.
   5910. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4298165)
The best thing for Republicans if for the Democrats to think this election tells the future.

Don't know if will be the "best" thing, but it would be a very good thing. The Republicans can't just sit back status quo. And we know they won't, at least in WI. :)
   5911. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:31 PM (#4298166)
From Byrd's Wikipedia page:


This is a classic Kehoskie red herring, by the way. Robert Byrd has nothing whatsoever to do with the current Democratic Party of today - he's DEAD. His alignment with the Klan from FIFTY YEARS AGO is even less relevant. Joe is attempting to equate a dead Dem Senator from 50 years ago with the GOP as it behaves today. It's classic false equivalency and classic Joe spin.
   5912. GregD Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4298167)
Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?
Joseph Coulon de Jumonville and Charles Dickinson wave slowly from their graves...
   5913. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4298168)
Quick chime-in: have we talked about important issues like keeping more people behind bars than any other country? The highest military budget by some five times? Land of the free home of the brave indeed. Or has it all been small-minded schadenfreude over what some washed-up d lister said today?


Also, have you personally spent all day working on a cure for cancer? If not, shame on you. I would have but I have been busy working on world peace, and am typing this while engaged in a sit-in protesting war and violence.
   5914. Dale Sams Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4298170)
Drew i was referring to the hate that people like Victoria Jackson generate, when really she should just have our pity. The inability of some people to understand the diff between truly evil people and just plain wack-jobs is astounding. Karl Rove is evil. Victoria Jackson is not all there.
   5915. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4298173)
Yeah, I feel bad for him now, as well. Perhaps he is simply a very mentally-ill person.

Dale, can I have a link or links to the murder story? I suspect we could argue successfully that virtually every president has been a murderer or committed atrocities.
   5916. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:34 PM (#4298174)
Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?


I can't really answer this question without delving into conceptual speak on what is murder, natural verus man's law, and what is the role of someone in the office of president (as well as the nature of war, the moral difference between ordering high altitude bombings and drone strikes, and so on).

Short answer - I reject the basic premise of the question, but even if I accepted it I sincerely doubt it.

EDIT: Fixed horrifying typos.
   5917. GregD Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:36 PM (#4298175)
It's funny to me what people on both sides have taken from this. Democrats feel it is overwhelming support for their ideas and an overwhelming rejection of Republican/conservative ideas. Republicans feel that Obama "suppressed the vote" and thus are in denial about how many people really do support Obama's policies.

Look: The country is basically split down the middle right now, for all practical purposes. Sometimes the balance tips to Democrats, sometimes it tips to Republicans. Denying this seems silly.

EDITed to state what I wanted more clearly.
This is basically right or almost right. If it were the NFL, the Democrats would be the 9-7 team playing the 7-9 team; they should win but they won't win always and they better prepare like crazy. If Republicans make proper adjustments, in four years it could be dead even and dependent on very narrow margins either way. I do think it is dangerous for Democrats to think that they are now automatically in the driver's seat. Things change! And Republicans could cut the margin quickly by becoming just a bit less overtly alienating to Latinos and educated white women. So Democrats absolutely shouldn't be overconfident.
   5918. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4298177)
For those that have not read the source article it is ... something. It doesn't at all reflect the GOP or really anyone or anything, except some dude and his internet friends that I feel kind of bad for (for whom I feel bad? Anyway).

BTW I don't believe for a second that Dondero represents anything more than the fringe of a fringe. But my wife got her degree in anthropology, and whenever I read rants like that I immediately start imagining I've discovered some long lost island where the people worship a decaying bronze statue of Henry Ford. There are some people in life who exist primarily to amuse the rest of us**, and this Dondero character is definitely one of them.

**at least as long as he remains at a safe distance
   5919. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4298178)
I mostly agree, Dale--I feel bad that they're so personally f'ed up. Extremists do need to be kept in check in some way, though--maybe we pity them while keeping an eye on them?
   5920. DA Baracus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4298179)
It's funny to me what people on both sides have taken from this. Democrats feel it is overwhelming support for their ideas and an overwhelming rejection of Republican/conservative ideas. Republicans feel that Obama "suppressed the vote" and thus are in denial about how many people really do support Obama's policies.

Look: The country is basically split down the middle right now, for all practical purposes. Sometimes the balance tips to Democrats, sometimes it tips to Republicans. Denying this seems silly.


I agree on the second part. But the notion that Obama suppressed votes is simply batshit crazy.
   5921. Greg K Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4298180)
Also, have you personally spent all day working on a cure for cancer? If not, shame on you. I would have but I have been busy working on world peace, and am typing this while engaged in a sit-in protesting war and violence.

I'm more outraged by the fact that no one's discussing Maicer Izturis' 3 year, $9 million deal with the Blue Jays. Priorities people!
   5922. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:38 PM (#4298181)
He'd quit it by 1950. You can keep hammering a guy for something he did and then apologized for and disavowed, but it's not very worthwhile.


It certainly doesn't seem very Christian, not that the term really means anything anymore.
   5923. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4298182)
well i do not believe the president or his party suppressed any vote. i think the dems did a sterling job getting out 'their' vote
   5924. Dale Sams Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4298183)
This is a decent article on the drone strike:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html
   5925. zenbitz Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4298184)

To me, racism is the belief that certain ethnicities have inherent genetic deficiencies. I don't have that belief.


The more I learn about Human genetics, the more this keeps me up at night. People - all people -- have inherent genetic deficiencies. A couple thousand, according to current estimates. "Races" and "Ethnicities" - while not a particular robust genetic group do share many chunks of inherited DNA (haplotypes) - and these specific haplotypes ARE (and will continue to be) associated with specific genetic deficiencies (as well as advantages!).

For example, I was at a seminar yesterday where a specific "defect" in a gene/gene region was strongly prevalent in Mexicans and Mexican Americans and highly associated with increased risk of Type II Diabetes. This little chunk of DNA is apparently Neaderthal in origin (Mexicans/Amerindians BTW have no more or less "Neanderthal DNA" than anyone else, they just got stuck with a "bad" chunk).

So, big deal - we have know for years that Diabetes varies based on ethnic groups. No one other than health insurance companies (I think illegally) discriminate based on it.

But that's a specific, very common disease. Not something like jumping ability. Or some kind of intellectual capability (not to get into IQ testing again... but obviously components of intelligence and reasoning, spatial relationships -- all types of intellect -- have a biological basis and it's essentially guaranteed that there are genetic components to this.

That is going to cause some trouble in the next 20 years. But perhaps it provides it's own solution. In that, to biologists, there really aren't any "races". There are just haplotypes and alleles and phenotypes. And skin color (and to a lesser extent, facial structure) just HAPPENS to be the way we sort other humans visually. But it's really quite a meanlingless distinction (unless you are talking about UV resistance and vitamin D dependence).


   5926. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4298185)
I do think it is dangerous for Democrats to think that they are now automatically in the driver's seat. Things change!


Yes.

So Democrats absolutely shouldn't be overconfident.


Yes.

And Republicans could cut the margin quickly by becoming just a bit less overtly alienating to Latinos and educated white women.


This is what we have been discussing, or it is a spin on the demographic/identity argument we are having. Can it be a quick change? I am not convinced it can be, and in the short run those changes might hurt the GOP and its ability to compete in the next election.

As much as the democrats won by this election (we got more House votes than the GOP did, but not as effectively spread so didn't win the House), we had a black guy at the head of the ticket and the economy is pretty bad (but looking better). If we can win under those circumstances and trends are in our favor I think some optimism is in order for the future.

   5927. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:41 PM (#4298186)
Yeah, I feel bad for him now, as well. Perhaps he is simply a very mentally-ill person.


"Perhaps?" I think the jury is back on that one.
   5928. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:42 PM (#4298188)
Also: No matter how much you hate to hear it, long-term deficit reduction and entitlement reform really are pretty important. Just because conservatives abuse the point doesn't mean there isn't something to it.


This is why liberals often tune out Kevin Drum his David Brooks from the left routine. There's little value in stating what everyone already agrees too.

1. Everyone agrees we need to address long-term deficit reduction.
2. Everyone agrees we need entitlement reform.

1a. Some folks believe, rightly in my opinion, that the danger presented by debt/deficits is massively overstated, and point to the fact that bonds are still beloved investment opportunities. The free market doesn't seem terribly concerned that the US is going to "go Greek" anytime soon.

1b. As such, we believe that addressing the recession and unemployment should take precedent over straight debt concerns.

2a. Entitlement reform should not be confused with the Ryan/Randian desire to eliminate the safety net altogether.
   5929. bunyon Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4298189)
i wish my party members would remember president reagan's golden rule about not speaking ill of other republicans. it distresses me that folks are attacking the governor.

HW, this also surprised me, though after 2008 I suppose we should have seen it coming. The 2012 Republican primary was like an old Democratic primary.
   5930. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:44 PM (#4298191)
Eric Dondero said...
I disowned them this morning. On Facebook and through an email. But fortunately my parents are diehard Republicans, and a sister. It's only the ###### up brother in Delaware, piece of ####, scumbag mother ###### who is a Democrat, and another sister in Philly who won't tell me, but I'm almost certain voted for Obama.

They are dead to me now. And I will not under any circumstances attend their funerals in 30 or 40 years.

Harsh, but a reality.



So... was this not reasonable? Should he not have done that?



Geez, this sort of stuff, I've just never gotten... I mean - this is one area where I suppose neither left nor right has a monopoly - I have a conservative uncle who won't even acknowledge me at family gatherings, which is weird, because we've only had one political discussion and I (don't think at least) it got all that heated. I've been informed that this is intentional because of my politics.

On the other hand, I have a liberal friend who is extremely estranged from her parents... although, in her defense - she's a lesbian and her parents have made it clear that her partner of 7 years is not welcome at their home nor do they wish to see her if/when they visit, which, since they live together, means her parents don't visit. But - you don't have to look far to find similar instances where the issue doesn't have the same manner of personal engagement.

   5931. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:46 PM (#4298193)
Not to fellate Sam too much* but 5928 is spot on (and I like Kevin Drum mostly).

* Too much in this case being at all. Sure I'll chip in to hire a hooker for him, but I draw the line there.
   5932. Famous Original Joe C Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:47 PM (#4298194)
Also from Eric Dondero from the link at [5844]:

When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.

I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade.


Awesome. Just awesome.
   5933. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4298195)
He'd quit it by 1950. You can keep hammering a guy for something he did and then apologized for and disavowed, but it's not very worthwhile.

But it's OK to hammer Romney for something he's never done, ever?

***
I mean if Pretty Pathetic Polling as Joe calls them was able to accurately gauge the electorate, why wasn't Team GOP able to at least privately know what was happening?

PPP wasn't able to accurately gauge the electorate. PPP generally overestimated Dem turnout by a point or two in about half the swing states, and it underestimated Dem turnout by a point or two in the others. Averaged together, they were accurate, but not so on the individual level. Rasmussen's numbers are getting bashed, but he was consistently GOP+2 almost everywhere, so you could at least use his numbers as a baseline
   5934. zenbitz Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4298196)
Also, have you personally spent all day working on a cure for cancer?


It bugs me that I do NOT do this. I mean, at least not DIRECTLY.
   5935. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4298197)
My sister (well one of the three) is in fact a evangelical GOP hardliner (Loves Palin for example). She unfriended me once (I suspect I know why, but she never said, and then refriended me later. She never ever talks politics with me, and I avoid it with her. We mostly get along, which is really wierd because she has had on and off fueds with the rest of the family over the years.

Families are funny beasts.
   5936. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4298198)
“We didn’t think they’d turn out more of their base vote than they did in 2008, but they smoked us,” said one Romney operative. “It’s unbelievable that that they turned out more from the African-American community than in 2008. Somehow they got ‘em to vote.”


1. The assumption that 2012 was going to look like the *mid-term* of 2010 rather than the *general* of 2008 is so flawed that it begs the question of basic competence from the Romney people.

2. You could have seen this coming and doubled down on GOTV efforts if you hadn't ignored completely the polling that said "the 2012 electorate is looking a LOT like 2008, man." But you chose to deny the results reality was handing you and make up excuses as to why your preferred reality was *really true.*

3. The fact that you can't imagine what might have driven African American turnout in 2012 is dumbfounding. If you want a sure-fire way of increasing turnout, even over and above the turnout for the historic election of the first AA president, spend the next four years doing everything in your power to deligitamize that president and his election. Dumbasses.
   5937. Lassus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4298200)
But it's OK to hammer Romney for something he's never done, ever?

Someone hammering him for being President?
   5938. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4298201)
When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.


And I presume her obvious reply is "Oh, you're so sexy! Sleep with me! Sleep with me now! Take me!" as she rips open her shirt.

He must get So. Many. Girls.
   5939. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:51 PM (#4298202)
On HW's comment regarding adapting to climate change: While I am of the believe that climate change / global warming is, in part, a man-made phenomenon and should be countered, not nearly enough energy is spent on the idea of 'if the world is going to get warmer, how should we respond?' Responding to climate change is likely to be a lot cheaper than reversing it (the best approach combines the two).

I also think HW's is correct in identifying absolutism as a bigger issue for the right than a lack of diversity - but they're both things they need to address. Quickly.
   5940. bunyon Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:52 PM (#4298203)
* Too much in this case being at all. Sure I'll chip in to hire a hooker for him, but I draw the line there.

Liberals giving away free stuff. Never ends.
   5941. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:53 PM (#4298204)
Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?



Andrew Jackson says hello.
   5942. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:54 PM (#4298206)
Rasmussen's numbers are getting bashed, but he was consistently GOP+2 almost everywhere, so you could at least use his numbers as a baseline


...which Nate Silver did by adjusting the results from Rasmussen, and you ROASTED him for it.
   5943. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:56 PM (#4298207)
In terms of institutional racism being an "unsolvable" problem, how about we start with an easy one: equalize the sentences for powdered and rock cocaine. That should be a no-brainer, right? How about we put a moratorium on stop-and-frisks? These are just two easy ones OTH. This notion that institutional racism is somehow amorphous and untied to public policy shows zero understanding of what the term actually refers to.

Harsher sentencing for crack cocaine was the result of Democratic legislation in the weeks after Len Bias died, while "stop and frisk" is the policy of a liberal mayor who endorsed Obama.

If your two best examples of institutional racism are Dem policies or policies of Dems in "independent" clothing, then maybe (1) there isn't as much racism in the U.S. as alleged, and (2) fingers shouldn't be so easily pointed at the GOP.

Just a thought.
   5944. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:57 PM (#4298209)
On HW's comment regarding adapting to climate change


Of course the US will by and large be fine, no matter what happens. Bangladesh one the other hand ...

It is the world's eighth most populous country and has one of the highest population densities in the world.


Most parts of Bangladesh are less than 12 m (39.4 ft) above the sea level, and it is believed that about 10% of the land would be flooded if the sea level were to rise by 1 m (3.28 ft).


So I am not sure how adapting to climate change is going to work out for some of the rest of the world. And selfishly I think the US is better off if the rest of the world is not dealing with climate change refugees and other such nonsense. That said in many respects it is too late to avoid everything, but it is not too late to get started.
   5945. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:58 PM (#4298211)
...which Nate Silver did by adjusting the results from Rasmussen, and you ROASTED him for it.

Huh? I have no idea what Nate did with Rasmussen's numbers, and neither do you. To the extent I "ROASTED" Nate, it was for claiming false precision in areas and in predictions that could not be precise.

If anyone truly believes Obama's one-point wins in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida could be predicted to four-decimal-point precision some 90 days in advance, they're nuts. For all we know, those slim victories were the result of Hurricane Sandy, which wasn't predicted by Nate's model at all.
   5946. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4298212)

The biggest influence on my politics over the past 20 years has probably been Thomas Sowell. Maybe some of the lefties here can tell us about "tolerance" as it pertains to Sowell and the slurs regularly hurled at him by people on the left.


Was this before or after Massa Buckley let him into the Big House?
   5947. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:01 PM (#4298216)
So I am not sure how adapting to climate change is going to work out for some of the rest of the world. And selfishly I think the US is better off if the rest of the world is not dealing with climate change refugees and other such nonsense. That said in many respects it is too late to avoid everything, but it is not too late to get started.

I agree with all of this.
   5948. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:02 PM (#4298217)
bitter

i don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea if a country is decimated by some form of environmental disaster. it's a global economy. the impact will be felt.

if i was a true opportunist i would be investing in companies that are developing means to help countries mitigate or manage the impact of climate change.
   5949. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:03 PM (#4298218)
Dale, the huffpost article is horrifying. There's also a Washington Post article inside that's on some levels more horrifying.

I've been saying it for a little while, but I voted Obama because he is a net positive influence on the country. He probably believes that expanded drone strikes are necessary. And for all we know, he's right. It seems like an ugly choice: to not kill likely members of Al Quaeda may mean to embolden them. But it's still awful, and a black mark on him for not finding a better way than killing an American citizen who had committed no crimes.
   5950. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4298220)
But it's still awful, and a black mark on him for not finding a better way than killing an American citizen who had committed no crimes.

Dog whistle!
   5951. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:05 PM (#4298221)
New Yorkers are running on empty, and may have to keep doing so for a little while longer.

Gas shortages could persist in the city for another “couple of weeks” as crews repair damage at several refineries knocked out of commission during Hurricane Sandy, experts said Thursday.


Odd that so many New York liberals are still driving cars that run on gas; one would have thought this problem was self-correcting due to the fact that liberals all claim to want to drive electric or gerbil-powered cars.
   5952. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:06 PM (#4298222)
Serious question: Is Obama the first murderer* to have been elected President?


Andrew Jackson says hello.


But one heat-of-the-moment internet crack about an umpire's kids and cancer and I'm disqualified forever! Life is so unfair.
   5953. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4298224)
In terms of institutional racism being an "unsolvable" problem, how about we start with an easy one: equalize the sentences for powdered and rock cocaine. That should be a no-brainer, right? How about we put a moratorium on stop-and-frisks? These are just two easy ones OTH. This notion that institutional racism is somehow amorphous and untied to public policy shows zero understanding of what the term actually refers to.

One way to equalize the sentences for powdered and rock cocaine in federal cases would be for President Obama to use his power to pardon and commute sentences.
But his record on pardons and commutations has been abysmal. The only President worse, in history, was GWB.
There's really no excuse - it's something he could do today, if he chose to.
Some Dems thought he'd get better after he was re-elected, but I wouldn't bet on it. It just doesn't seem that important to him.
   5954. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:08 PM (#4298225)
if i was a true opportunist i would be investing in companies that are developing means to help countries mitigate or manage the impact of climate change.
So... that's what you're going to do?
   5955. The Good Face Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4298228)
Oh, and smart people on both sides of the aisle should start thinking seriously about how to handle a future in which smart machines do more and more work and humans do less and less. I'm dead serious about this.


Is a good point that I'd be interested in hearing conservative views about, especially in light of 'limited government' and 'takers/makers'...

On one hand, this debate dates back more than a century -- you can find thinkers that were wondering what would happen to farm laborers, factory workers, etc -- when new machines would lead us to fewer jobs, etc.

We always seem to have found more 'work' for human beings - even if increasingly, much of it is just 'busy work - but what does happen when the day is upon us that a really big chunk of work today is handled by machines? Even, the building of machines to DO that work comes by machines?


This is fascinating stuff (to me anyway), and I've tried to steer a few conversations here in that direction, but most people don't seem very interested.

I think we're entering the early stages of this scenario right now; cheap labor from immigration and globalization is helping to stave off automation in some areas, but machines are getting cheaper and better all the time. Keep in mind that from the perspective of most corporations, employees suck; they slack off, get hurt, hurt others, sexually harass one other, miss work because of their kids and generally act like dumbasses. The only reasons not to automate whenever possible are costs and capabilities.

There are fewer and fewer unskilled and semi-skilled jobs out there, and those that remain are increasingly filled with cheap immigrant labor. Google has already successfully demonstrated that cars can be programmed to drive themselves autonomously; within 10 years, I expect that technology to be taking jobs away from truck drivers and cabbies.

The jobs that remain will require specialized skills, superior reading comprehension/reasoning/communication abilities, or some combination of both. A good chunk of the population is not smart enough to handle those jobs, and the traditional jobs those people would ordinarily take will be mostly gone.

I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society. The easiest solution is probably to do more or less what we've been doing. Provide cheap government housing in undesireable locations, offer food assistance/welfare sufficient to keep them fed/drunk, and have everybody who can afford it move far away from "those people". Maybe try to direct the recipients energies into something non-harmful, where their desire to accumulate status and meaning could be sublimated; perhaps a sort of universal MMOG for people with absolutely nothing better to do. Essentially paying 40% of the population to play futuristic WOW/Farmville and stay out of trouble.
   5956. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4298229)
Huh? I have no idea what Nate did with Rasmussen's numbers, and neither do you.


Of course I do. He explained it all the time with regards to various polls.
He stated that Rasmussen "leaned" Republican, and therefore he weighted how he took those numbers from Rasmussen.
It's one of those things that made Silver's aggregation different from RCP (plus using more polls).

one would have thought this problem was self-correcting due to the fact that liberals all claim to want to drive electric or gerbil-powered cars.


Or use public transit. Which, if I'm not mistaken a lot of them do...when it isn't flooded.
   5957. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:10 PM (#4298230)
larry

gee, what kind of guy do you think i am?

of course i also think water will become quite the market as things become more arid in various regions.

   5958. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4298231)
I (think I) know enough economics to be dangerous (well to my family I suppose). Serious question here that I can't get my uneducated head around.
One side sez that we can't raise taxes on the wealthy (i.e., self-titled "job creators") because that will kill jobs. I get the investment/jobs cycle more or less. But we've had 7-8 years of tax cuts on the wealthy (and everyone else, sure) and did those cuts "create jobs"? Or did it enable folks to go on more exotic golf trips and buy bigger Mercedes? Or did it get invested and we would have 10-12% or worse "official" unemployment otherwise?

The whole "Job Creator" thing is another discussion. If Lowe's drove Builder's Square out of business, did they really create any jobs? (Again, I get that efficieny is good).

If the Buggy Whip manufacturer switched to Automobile cranks (both start modes of transportation, right?) and produce three times as many per worker but only need twice the number of cranks, that's creative destruction and that is good. Is that person a "Job Destroyer"?


And one last question, why can't we be rebuilding infrastructure as an economic stimulus? It creates temporary jobs on the one hand (Dems) and it's investment on the other hand (Reps). It seems too simple. Which is why it makes sense to me.
   5959. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4298232)
Families are funny beasts.


Never underestimate the efficacy of having them die.

It's worked for me.

Saves tons on birthday & Christmas purchases, too.
   5960. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:12 PM (#4298233)
Reading some of these posts on the various websites I am beginning to wonder what it would take for some of these idiots to really try to break from the republic?
   5961. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:14 PM (#4298234)
good

the robot market is coming. and that google car could be quite the innovation

i doubt i will be around to see the next great step. as an engineer by education and as one who loves to tinker i am missing out

sure i got to see a lot of interesting stuff. but cars that drive themselves? self-directed machines that handle complex tasks?

that's the science fiction i read growing up.
   5962. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4298236)
spankz

i am surprised nobody has thrown the secessionists at me. that's a niche group in the party as well.
   5963. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:15 PM (#4298237)
Essentially paying 40% of the population to play futuristic WOW/Farmville and stay out of trouble.

The problem is, that 40 percent is growing a lot faster than the producer class, and they get to vote. Didn't you see the "47 percent" video? Ha ha.
   5964. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:16 PM (#4298238)
Of course the US will by and large be fine, no matter what happens. Bangladesh one the other hand ...


I think this undersells things a bit. Yes, most likely Bangledesh and other poor, low lying countries will have it *worse*, but that doesn't mean the US will be "fine" per se. The US could, for example, see a series of major storms destroy lives and infrastructure in areas of the country that are not prepared to deal with it, like New York and New Jersey. Just as an example.

Moreso, it's a bit hubristic to assume we can project the outcomes and effects of climate change. The assumption that all of the stable climate belts will just move up a bit, so GA and TX look more like Mexico, and Canada gets more arable farmland to replace what dries up down south, is just wishcasting into the void. It's quite possible that the effect of climate change is that stable climate belts cease to exist and farmers become far less able to predict what will happen in a growing season, which would significantly disrupt food production across the world.

Again, that hurts the poorer world *more* but the US still needs food.
   5965. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:19 PM (#4298240)
That Eric Dondero screed... Wow.

But it made me smile.
   5966. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4298241)
I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society. The easiest solution is probably to do more or less what we've been doing. Provide cheap government housing in undesireable locations, offer food assistance/welfare sufficient to keep them fed/drunk, and have everybody who can afford it move far away from "those people". Maybe try to direct the recipients energies into something non-harmful, where their desire to accumulate status and meaning could be sublimated; perhaps a sort of universal MMOG for people with absolutely nothing better to do. Essentially paying 40% of the population to play futuristic WOW/Farmville and stay out of trouble.


For the record, the conversation you guys are embarking upon is straight up Marxist theory of post-capitalism. But don't let that run you away. This is a conversation that needs to be had, and you're right: the answer is that the Puritanical moralism that associates human value with "work all day" is going to have to shift significantly in our looming robotic future.
   5967. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4298242)
This is why liberals often tune out Kevin Drum his David Brooks from the left routine. There's little value in stating what everyone already agrees too.

1. Everyone agrees we need to address long-term deficit reduction.
2. Everyone agrees we need entitlement reform.

1a. Some folks believe, rightly in my opinion, that the danger presented by debt/deficits is massively overstated, and point to the fact that bonds are still beloved investment opportunities. The free market doesn't seem terribly concerned that the US is going to "go Greek" anytime soon.

1b. As such, we believe that addressing the recession and unemployment should take precedent over straight debt concerns.

2a. Entitlement reform should not be confused with the Ryan/Randian desire to eliminate the safety net altogether.


This was the 'agreement' I reached with my conservative friend via e-mail before we dove into an entitlement reform discussion:

We hereby agree that the following guidelines shall be strictly adhered to in the forthcoming debate on entitlements:

Party (ME) agrees that while expanding Medicare into a national single payer program may be an ultimate desire, it is not on the table for discussion. Party (HIM) agrees that while opposing the very existence of the Medicare on ideological grounds might be bedrock, its elimination is likewise not on the table for discussion. Each party may at his discretion, propose limited or test programs that are related to these higher goals, but the other party reserves the right to ignore/not address them out of hand at said party's discretion.

Further, Party (HIM) agrees that entitlement discussion will be clearly limited and confined to the reality of the budget (i.e.,. recognition of the difference between the discretionary budget that drives the deficit and the entitlements budget that does not), and will refrain from hyperbolic comparisons to Greece, acknowledging the realities of the origin of the "debt ceiling", acknowledging the realities of the SS/M trust fund actually funding borrowing, and will as such, confine the discussion solely to entitlement costs and funding without conflating the two for larger ideological purposes. Party (ME) agrees overall spending may be allowed, but only when germane to the realities of the overall balance sheet, further agrees not to resort to any Keynesian "In the long run, we're all dead" discussion enders, and finally, acknowledges that demographic realities will inevitably lead to a system that drains to zero/real-time funding without some manner of adjustment. Party (ME) will also refrain from any emotionally charged appeals to 'grandma'.

Finally, both parties agree that any real numbers will be presented both in raw dollars and appropriate proportional representations for the good of the debate. Where any use solely of percentages or solely of raw dollars are used, both parties agree that such usage will be limited, understood as simple lack of corresponding measure as available or easy to calculate, and not used for shock value.

...it's a good agreement that's led to a real good exchange, I think... but it's damn near impossible to get any broad national or political agreed upon framework in place.
   5968. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4298244)
But one heat-of-the-moment internet crack about an umpire's kids and cancer and I'm disqualified forever! Life is so unfair.


Has the presidency ever been bestowed on anyone guilty of a fatal neck-stabbing?
   5969. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:21 PM (#4298245)
they are growing some tremendous pinot noirs in british columbia. if you want one positive of climate change, there you go

that and minnesota and north dakiota will likely become america's breadbasket. they are pretty nice folks
   5970. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:22 PM (#4298247)
This is fascinating stuff (to me anyway), and I've tried to steer a few conversations here in that direction, but most people don't seem very interested.


Me too.

I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society.


And here we answer why the discussion doesn't go very far.
   5971. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4298248)
Essentially paying 40% of the population to play futuristic WOW/Farmville and stay out of trouble.

Again, that hurts the poorer world *more* but the US still needs food.


In that case, we can afford to be inefficient and have the Farmville crowd play for keeps as farm hands. Some years, nothing to harvest, in other years, lots.
   5972. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4298249)
This is a classic Kehoskie red herring, by the way. Robert Byrd has nothing whatsoever to do with the current Democratic Party of today - he's DEAD. His alignment with the Klan from FIFTY YEARS AGO is even less relevant. Joe is attempting to equate a dead Dem Senator from 50 years ago with the GOP as it behaves today. It's classic false equivalency and classic Joe spin.

Nonsense. Your theory is that Latinos wouldn't vote for Romney not because of anything Romney said or did, but because the party has some racist wingnuts on the fringes. And I simply pointed out that the overwhelming majority of blacks seemingly had no problem voting for Dems during the 30 years that a former Klansman was prominent among the Dem leadership.

You (and a lot of others here) seem to see the entire GOP/Latino issue as one of racism, when, in fact, it's one of government and political philosophy. The GOP wants less government and makes no secret of that desire, while Latinos want more government and make no secret of that desire. The two positions are incompatible, which is borne out in the voting trends.
   5973. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4298250)
sure i got to see a lot of interesting stuff. but cars that drive themselves? self-directed machines that handle complex tasks?


The knock-on effects of robot cars is pretty big. For example, roadside dining is pointless when you can sit with the family in the driverless car and eat on the way to the beach.
   5974. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4298252)
cars that drive themselves? self-directed machines that handle complex tasks?

that's the science fiction i read growing up.


Heinlein's "The Roads Must Roll" is an idea whose time has come.

(Of course, many of Heinlein's other ideas would make Rand Paul sound like a Bolsevik.)
   5975. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:26 PM (#4298253)
that and minnesota and north dakiota will likely become america's breadbasket. they are pretty nice folks


Perhaps my underselling the dangers of climate change for the US spring from raw self interest. Hmmmm. Seriously though I purposefully undersold CC as a US problem because I think the US can handle it. We have the money, will, and money to do so and the technology will come. I am much less sure of the rest of the world and that gives me a sad.
   5976. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4298254)
Rasmussen's numbers are getting bashed, but he was consistently GOP+2 almost everywhere, so you could at least use his numbers as a baseline

Scott Rasmussen: "I'm the Eric Gregg of Pollsters."

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

My sister (well one of the three) is in fact a evangelical GOP hardliner (Loves Palin for example). She unfriended me once (I suspect I know why, but she never said, and then refriended me later. She never ever talks politics with me, and I avoid it with her. We mostly get along, which is really wierd because she has had on and off fueds with the rest of the family over the years.

As I've mentioned previously, my business partner is a rabid Obama-baiter. Outside of that he's perfectly sane and rational. He sends me chain e-mails all the time (though not as many as my pool playing buddy), but since the election I haven't heard a peep out of him, or the other guy either.
   5977. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:27 PM (#4298255)
Porn industry in uproar over the new condom law just passed.

They're threatening to replace the actors with condomless robots.
   5978. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:28 PM (#4298256)
Porn industry in uproar over the new condom law just passed.

They're threatening to replace the actors with condomless robots.


You've seen the acting in those things, who will know the difference?
   5979. The Good Face Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4298258)
For the record, the conversation you guys are embarking upon is straight up Marxist theory of post-capitalism. But don't let that run you away. This is a conversation that needs to be had, and you're right: the answer is that the Puritanical moralism that associates human value with "work all day" is going to have to shift significantly in our looming robotic future.


My concern is that it's not just "Puritanism" though. People with nothing to occupy their time create social pathologies. The ones who want status but have no outlet to do so through traditional means will turn to crime. Alcoholism and drug abuse become rampant. Depression and other mental illnesses become more common. There's a lot of evidence that it's not healthy for people to just do nothing.
   5980. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:31 PM (#4298259)
Nonsense. Your theory is that Latinos wouldn't vote for Romney not because of anything Romney said or did, but because the party has some racist wingnuts on the fringes.


The theory I liked was the structural issues around the parties and race. Even if the policies were exactly the same would you rather vote for one that is virtually all white male (OK there are a few females and a sprinkling of other) or one that is chock full of the rainbow of flavors that humanity comes in?

And of course the policies and rhetoric are not the same. Not coincidentally the pale male party has some harsh rhetoric and some kind of nasty planks in their platform. The rainbow party has said many more nice things, has HR approved lingo in its party platform, and has actually tried recently to pass (not as hard as it should have I admit) additional legislation.

Pretending it comes down to the fringes on either side is missing the forest for that one tree over there. No not that one, the one behind it.

EDIT: I am pretty sure it was zonk's theory (or at least post) that said it best. I am too lazy to go look though.
   5981. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:33 PM (#4298261)
the wallbanger family is filled with debaters but we keep it friendly. only the ex son in law crossed the law and he's gone now anyway.

the wife is the one who uses the charged language just to get under my skin. for the last month leading up to the election she referred to teh gop as the 'nazi party'. i let her have her fun.
   5982. Greg K Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4298262)
.
   5983. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4298263)
The real leader of the Republican party reminds us today that some beaners are better than others:

LIMBAUGH: But the Republicans get a large part of the Cuban vote, particularly South Florida, already. And it's oriented -- I can't win here, I just can't win. It's oriented -- the reason that the Cubans are not that popular, of the Hispanic divisions you've talked about -- it's a race thing. It's a race thing. They're just not quite dark -- as dark, and they're oriented toward work.


I'm from Miami and its true you know - I've never seen a Cuban taking a siesta on the side of the road with his sombrero pulled down over his nose.
   5984. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4298264)
Your theory is that Latinos wouldn't vote for Romney not because of anything Romney said or did, but because the party has some racist wingnuts on the fringes. And I simply pointed out that the overwhelming majority of blacks seemingly had no problem voting for Dems during the 30 years that a former Klansman was prominent among the Dem leadership.

Since I'm old and senile, maybe you can remind me of the Democratic primary where Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond and James O. Eastland were the three front runners, and the winner out-segged the competition on his way to the nomination.

Once again: Robert Byrd's leadership position in the Democratic Party came long after he'd repudiated his past racial views. And even after he'd risen in his party's ranks, he never would have been considered by anyone as a contender for the presidency. His position in the Senate was entirely based on seniority, reinforced by the then-one party status of West Virginia.

By contrast, Romney achieved his party's nomination in great part by endorsing the Arizona immigration law and not saying a word against Sheriff Arpaio when he had every opportunity to do so in that primary debate. Trying to equate these two situations of Byrd and Romney has got to make one wonder about your ability to sort information.
   5985. GregD Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4298265)
Nonsense. Your theory is that Latinos wouldn't vote for Romney not because of anything Romney said or did, but because the party has some racist wingnuts on the fringes. And I simply pointed out that the overwhelming majority of blacks seemingly had no problem voting for Dems during the 30 years that a former Klansman was prominent among the Dem leadership.
I actually think Byrd is an interesting lesson for Republicans, though it's minimized by the fact that as a senator, even a fairly prominent one (voted 14th most powerful), from a small state, he was unknown to almost everyone and frequently confused with the members of the initially more powerful Virginia Byrd family.

Byrd was in the KKK in the 1940s. More significantly in 1964 he filibustered the Civil Rights Act. And voted against Thurgood Marshall. Them's marks that don't go away.

But he changed. Who knows his heart? But he voted differently--the NAACP gave him a 100% rating in 2004--and he spoke differently calling the Klan and the Civil Rights Act filibuster the worst mistakes of his life.

Even so the Democrats were not exactly holding him up as their example of their open-mindedness and he never got anywhere in his try for national office.

So the lesson for Republicans would be that if a rabidly anti-immigration elected official, apologized and got a 100% rating from a pro-immigration group, you're probably safe giving that guy a ceremonial role in the party.

The other interesting lesson is George Wallace who, for all his racist diatribes, had a good record on keeping social service programs open to blacks (segregated of course), then apologized, outlined his new policies, won a primary with scant black support, and then got black support in a general election.

So the Wallace lesson would be that you can gain votes from a side you've demonized but you need to apologize and lay out a new policy and then hope your opponent is even less desirable.

But both of those are too stringent. Republicans just need to run someone who is unapologetically pro-immigration, both in terms of its impact upon the country and in terms of favoring reasonable policies to deal with people who came here by some other means. Tone matters but policy matters, too. If they do that, I don't think the past 50 years will haunt them. I don't see an emphatically pro-immigration platform getting through the convention but stranger things have happened.
   5986. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4298266)
You've seen the acting in those things, who will know the difference?


I'd love to know how many people who don't watch the films voted to put a condom law on them.
   5987. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:38 PM (#4298267)
latinos are not a one trick pony. it's more than immigration policy
   5988. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4298268)

I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society.


There are always more things to do. While I share the concern with issues of economic opportunity and inequality, freeing up labor in one area simply makes other, labor-intensive jobs more economically feasible.

There are a variety of possible scenarios. In one, your educated, super-skilled robot designer uses the money earned by his skills to hire a maid, butler, chauffeur, three gardeners, and cook. Not because he really needs them (the car could drive itself), but they serve as status symbols, much like upper-class life in 19th-century Europe.

Or, if that's too dystopian for you, the same people can offer services as yoga instructors, can sell hand-carved bird feeders, act as wedding planners, interior designers, personal trainers, etc. etc. for the same person.
   5989. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4298269)
The theory I liked was the structural issues around the parties and race. Even if the policies were exactly the same would you rather vote for one that is virtually all white male (OK there are a few females and a sprinkling of other) or one that is chock full of the rainbow of flavors that humanity comes in?

And of course the policies and rhetoric are not the same. Not coincidentally the pale male party has some harsh rhetoric and some kind of nasty planks intheir platform. The rainbow party has said many more nice things, has HR approved lingo in its party platform, and has actually tried recently to pass (not as hard as it should have I admit) additional legislation.

This is silly. The policies of the Dems and GOP obviously aren't exactly the same, and your apparent presumption that one side would still have a "rainbow of flavors" because they're better people rather than for policy reasons is both incredibly incorrect and incredibly arrogant.

Being in favor of the CRA but against affirmative action is the truly colorblind position. Refusing to pander to illegal immigrants is not the same thing as "hating brown people" or evidence of institutional racism within the GOP.

Latinos, and especially Latino immigrants, are precisely the people for whom big government is most attractive. That's the challenge faced by the GOP, not the alleged presence of millions of anti-Latino racists in the party's midst.
   5990. Kurt Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:40 PM (#4298270)
Nonsense. Your theory is that Latinos wouldn't vote for Romney not because of anything Romney said or did, but because the party has some racist wingnuts on the fringes. And I simply pointed out that the overwhelming majority of blacks seemingly had no problem voting for Dems during the 30 years that a former Klansman was prominent among the Dem leadership.

Earth to Joe: Racism is less socially acceptable in America in 2012 than it was in 1977, and a *lot* less socially acceptable than it was in 1950.

   5991. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4298271)
My concern is that it's not just "Puritanism" though. People with nothing to occupy their time create social pathologies. The ones who want status but have no outlet to do so through traditional means will turn to crime. Alcoholism and drug abuse become rampant. Depression and other mental illnesses become more common. There's a lot of evidence that it's not healthy for people to just do nothing.


One generation's pathology is the next generation's fun-time hobby! I think your crime, alcoholism and druggies is a worst case dystopian scenario. It's possible that people will decide to travel, see the world, meet new peoples and cultures (robot boats taking the newly freed working classes around the world on month long holidays) which in turn will build understanding and trust between nations and cultures, reducing global violence and war. Art and literature becomes a common man's game. We shoot Lassus into outer space. Everyone wins.
   5992. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4298272)
I'd love to know how many people who don't watch the films voted to put a condom law on them.


This is a mirror of Euro porn's condom laws. It's not about aesthetics. It's about STDs.
   5993. Fred Lynn Nolan Ryan Sweeney Agonistes Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:42 PM (#4298273)
Porn industry in uproar over the new condom law just passed.

I think it'd be awesome if they just spliced in old condomless footage for the closeups and "finale."
   5994. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4298277)
only the ex son in law crossed the law and he's gone now anyway.


Buried out in the cornfield, one presumes.
   5995. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4298278)
LIMBAUGH: But the Republicans get a large part of the Cuban vote, particularly South Florida, already. And it's oriented -- I can't win here, I just can't win. It's oriented -- the reason that the Cubans are not that popular, of the Hispanic divisions you've talked about -- it's a race thing. It's a race thing. They're just not quite dark -- as dark, and they're oriented toward work.


The joke is that Obama beat Romney by two points among Cuban-Americans.
   5996. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4298279)
if i recall correctly i thought i read of a new form of the clap spreading through europe that was resistant to the usual drugs

do i remember that right?
   5997. Greg K Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4298280)
My family doesn't really discuss politics. When I was a kid I asked my mom who she voted for once and she said that's a rude question to ask someone. Funnily enough I think everyone in my family (mom, dad, brother, me, aunts and uncles on my mom's side) have voted for the same party in almost every election, or at least voted on the same end of the spectrum. I have an uncle who leans quite far left, but he grew up in Mussolini's Italy so I can certainly see where he's coming from.

My dad's side of the family, who live a few hours away have opposing views on both politics and religion, though I don't recall ever hearing any political debates. I get the impression my dad made his views clear when he moved out his hometown. Religion is important to a few of my aunts and they discuss it quite often, though not when my dad's around.

   5998. DevilInABlueCap Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:44 PM (#4298281)
Stepping in for a second just to say that I am deeply touched by all the people who worried that I was being: a) condescended to or b) fetishized.

Now, to speak for myself: I didn't find myself the least condescended to. In fact, I'm far more used to hearing that I'm a shrill harpy that doesn't understand what I'm talking about and needs to realize that white men know way more about minorities, structural racism and the history of race relations than I do (apparently, I am too emotional to know what I say, whereas white people are always calm and cool). Finding that people take me seriously is a comfort. I assure you, the moment I feel that I'm being talked down to, I will gladly say as much. That said, the worry over paternalism (Andy's or otherwise) was, in fact, condescending. Ray's comments about how the Democratic Party is full of the real racists was way more paternalistic than anything else. It stripped any semblance of intelligence or agency away from minorities, and implied that they are either too dumb or too naive to understand why they even vote for Democrats.

I suspect that Andy highlights my comments because a) I'm a relatively rare voice, b) I echo or reinforce much of what he says about race relations, but I have "street cred" in a way that he doesn't, c) he quotes things he likes a lot anyway.

Back to the much more interesting discussion about climate change and the political realities around it.
   5999. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:46 PM (#4298282)
This is a mirror of Euro porn's condom laws. It's not about aesthetics. It's about STDs.


I'm sure the actors and actresses understand what the risks are. Thus, no need for a law.
   6000. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4298283)
Is a good point that I'd be interested in hearing conservative views about, especially in light of 'limited government' and 'takers/makers'...

On one hand, this debate dates back more than a century -- you can find thinkers that were wondering what would happen to farm laborers, factory workers, etc -- when new machines would lead us to fewer jobs, etc.

We always seem to have found more 'work' for human beings - even if increasingly, much of it is just 'busy work - but what does happen when the day is upon us that a really big chunk of work today is handled by machines? Even, the building of machines to DO that work comes by machines?




This is fascinating stuff (to me anyway), and I've tried to steer a few conversations here in that direction, but most people don't seem very interested.

I think we're entering the early stages of this scenario right now; cheap labor from immigration and globalization is helping to stave off automation in some areas, but machines are getting cheaper and better all the time. Keep in mind that from the perspective of most corporations, employees suck; they slack off, get hurt, hurt others, sexually harass one other, miss work because of their kids and generally act like dumbasses. The only reasons not to automate whenever possible are costs and capabilities.

There are fewer and fewer unskilled and semi-skilled jobs out there, and those that remain are increasingly filled with cheap immigrant labor. Google has already successfully demonstrated that cars can be programmed to drive themselves autonomously; within 10 years, I expect that technology to be taking jobs away from truck drivers and cabbies.

The jobs that remain will require specialized skills, superior reading comprehension/reasoning/communication abilities, or some combination of both. A good chunk of the population is not smart enough to handle those jobs, and the traditional jobs those people would ordinarily take will be mostly gone.

I don't know that there is a good answer to any of this, at least not until/unless we get really lucky and achieve a post-scarcity society. The easiest solution is probably to do more or less what we've been doing. Provide cheap government housing in undesireable locations, offer food assistance/welfare sufficient to keep them fed/drunk, and have everybody who can afford it move far away from "those people". Maybe try to direct the recipients energies into something non-harmful, where their desire to accumulate status and meaning could be sublimated; perhaps a sort of universal MMOG for people with absolutely nothing better to do. Essentially paying 40% of the population to play futuristic WOW/Farmville and stay out of trouble.


Some other 'gainful employment' ideas in this future...

Blade Runner and Speilbergian A.I. aside - I have a hard time believing that androids would ever substitute for the old-fashioned role in the hay, even for mechanical, loveless sex... couple that with increased feminine sexual empowerment, maybe we'll have see an explosion in the world's oldest profession.

Figure that medical science will be able to regenerate limbs and organs, we'll probably always have need for some form of human trials - at least, until we can do computerized simulations to such minute and granular details that even this becomes unnecessary. What's more - we may never be able to replicate the mental, and even medical processes that don't affect brain chemistry might always still require some manner of psychological monitoring...

Matrixian human batteries!

It's hard to find answers that aren't dystopian...
Page 60 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogKemp drawing interest, raising chance he's the Dodgers OF dealt - CBSSports.com
(2 - 12:26pm, Nov 22)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogMatthews: Cashman sleeps on the street, says all is quiet on the free-agent front
(16 - 12:25pm, Nov 22)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(6 - 12:23pm, Nov 22)
Last: RMc is a fine piece of cheese

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(376 - 12:23pm, Nov 22)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2014 Ballot
(9 - 12:20pm, Nov 22)
Last: lieiam

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4137 - 12:11pm, Nov 22)
Last: GregD

NewsblogMike Schmidt: Marlins' Stanton too rich too early? | www.palmbeachpost.com
(13 - 12:11pm, Nov 22)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogCashman in wait-and-see mode on retooling Yanks | yankees.com
(2 - 12:08pm, Nov 22)
Last: Bug Selig

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(69 - 11:53am, Nov 22)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(943 - 11:42am, Nov 22)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogMLB.com: White Sox Land Adam LaRoche With 2 Year/$25M Deal
(14 - 11:40am, Nov 22)
Last: Joey B.

NewsblogDodgers Acquire Joel Peralta – MLB Trade Rumors
(35 - 11:36am, Nov 22)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogFriars show interest in dealing for Bruce | MLB.com
(3 - 11:20am, Nov 22)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogBraves shopping Justin Upton at a steep price | New York Post
(1 - 10:26am, Nov 22)
Last: Astroenteritis

NewsblogRed Sox offer for Pablo Sandoval might be in the lead - Sports - The Boston Globe
(1 - 10:13am, Nov 22)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)

Page rendered in 1.0183 seconds
52 querie(s) executed