This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - sluglaw
« on: December 07, 2008, 10:43:07 PM »
i've been listening to mgmt lately- up and coming band, fun to listen to. i feel so behind on music these days.
facebook has been getting progressively worse for a long while, first it took the sport out of rummaging through people's privacy and now everyone and their mother is on there. no bueno.
i always go to the gym and to try to blow of the study blues. a change of pace and enviro sounds like what ya need. any good hiking or biking trails in your area?
« on: December 06, 2008, 11:33:32 PM »
"Some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage"
is it - None of the museum's employees are paid significantly more than the minimum wage"
is it - all of the museum's employees are paid significantly more than the minimum wage"
This is from #54 sec 2 (1stLR) # 9
The second one is correct.
"Some of the museum's employees are not paid significantly more than the minimum wage" requires that at least one employee
is not paid significantly more. The negation is then that not even one employee is not paid significantly more, therefore all employees are paid significantly more.
The negation of some depends upon the context. Try to translate the statement into plain english from logic gobblety-gook, it will make it much easier.
« on: December 06, 2008, 11:28:55 PM »
Would you start consulting experts, carear services, books after your realized 300 blind resumes was not working, or would you just get up everyday get up and keep doing the same thing with the same results? I dunno, I only stuck a fork in the light socket once to relize maybe thta's not what it was for.
well it's easy to think, "it's the economy" rather than "it's the way i'm going about doing things".
I think people always have that tendency, to externalize a problem rather than engage in introspection. 300 to 1 blind resumes to job interviews is probably about right for any economy. The fact that this dude had an informational interview with CNN before he did one with a lawyer tells you a lot.
« on: December 04, 2008, 03:09:46 PM »
"college tuition and fees increased 439 percent from 1982 to 2007 while median family income rose 147 percent. Student borrowing has more than doubled in the last decade, and students from lower-income families, on average, get smaller grants from the colleges they attend than students from more affluent families. "
As congress contemplates granting billions to auto makers, our education system continues to languish in a state of neglect. One of the first acts as an adult of millions of Americans is to accumulate thousands in debt with being fully aware of the implications of that debt, something which I can personally attest to and which probably in no small way has contributed to the formation of the debt society that we now live in. People can't make money if they don't go to college and can't go to college without taking on enormous debt, made worse by predatory lenders issuing thousands in loans to students who want to live even more beyond their means than what federal loans allow for. My parents' and grandparents' generations could all afford to work their ways through college, now 5 years of fulltime post-graduation work isn't enough to cover our debt. This is a serious issue for the future of our country, at the rate we are going our education system will collapse in a few decades.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/science/earth/04meat.html?em
Vegetarianism and Veganism: now more than ever. Stop wasting our farmland on unhealthy, cruel, environmental degrading practices, start eating healthier, living a better life, and preserving our most precious natural resource (arable land) for future generations.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7765586.stm
Dilemma: support one of the most sluggish, obnoxiously slow to change industries in the world that continues to trade on its past glories, or allow factories nationwide to shut down and massive debt defaults to occur? And, since no one is buying cars right now, does it even matter anyways? Couldn't we just set up massive public works projects (like BART expansion and high speed rail in CA) to offset job losses in the auto industry while also supporting the economy of the future, or is this just a pipe dream? Is America really never going to have a nationwide mass public transportation infrastructure?http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7765265.stm
Does anyone really think the Pakistani government is stable enough to survive a significant response from the US and India? If that regime collapses what then? A joint NATO-India task force to govern the region? Re-united with India proper? India was once the most successful multicultural state in the world. Is it time to move past difference, restore the rights of Muslims in that country and move towards reconciliation? Could a reunited India living in harmony be enough to supress radicals, and even provide a template for success in Palestine/Israel, or is a nuclear confrontation inevitable?
« on: December 04, 2008, 02:43:31 PM »
It IS interesting, however, that the polls don't reflect the enthusiasm the Obama camp claims exists. If you listened to these folks talk about it, you'd think Obama was up 20 points. He isn't. We are looking at a close race. Does that mean they are deluded? Possibly. It might mean that they are trying, with the media behaving like lapdogs, to convince people who don't care enough to find out for themselves that Obama is not only going to win, but the inevitable next POTUS. Hence, when I say there is an appeal to the stupid I don't mean that true Obama supporters are stupid, but that you average American who DOESN'T care reads and hears every day that Obama is the next coming.
I live in Chicago. I read both papers. Neither has bothered to do much investigating of allegations regarding Obama. Both have jumped in to criticize McCain and investigate Palin. The media has an important role of impartial investigation to play. Sadly, they don't care about that anymore and have chosen instead to use their positions to get Obama elected. There is no impartial media. Even Hillary admits that Fox news gave her the most fair and balanced coverage. I think Fox's commentary is skewed right, but that's one station. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and most newspapers tend to skew left. So why the hubub? Is it because they have a larger audience base?
The left thinks that the power play is to attack Palin as an awful choice. Palin reenergized the party. If she was such a bad choice, why is the race this close? Because the left seems to think that she is a serious threat. That choice undermined the faux feminism inherent to the overtly sexist democratic leadership. Theater.
Both sides are guilty.
I've made all the points that I really want to so I'll answer these quickly:
-having a significant lead does not mean a 20% lead, which would be roughly an electoral college near-sweep, a very rare occurance. I believe it has happened for two presidents this century: Reagan and FDR. A "solid lead" in an election is 3-5% just enough to be beyond the margin of error, and also enough to consider enough states to cleanly win the electoral college while avoiding another Ohio or Florida fiasco; this is exactly what happened in the election.
-there are significant bias issues with the media but I think outside Fox and NPR (increasingly MSNBC as well) most media outlets can easily be duped one way or the other. see: iraq. this year i do think obama was an exception who capitalized on a perfect storm of popularity, uniqueness/newness, and a pathetic showing by his opponent to absolutely dominate the media coverage. until you show why these things (which I brought up before) are objectively false, I don't see what the problem is with the way the media covered this race.
-the most Palin did was shore up (slightly) the conservative base of the GOP which McCain had managed to completely alienate while simultaneously alienating McCain's moderate base of voters who had trusted him for years but grown increasingly skeptical of his behavior the last 4 (count me in that camp). She did not make the race close nor is she a 'threat' due to her inability to gain traction outside of the conservative base. this is not about sexism but about an utter lack of preparedness and qualifications. her educational background is very unusual for a national candidate. she has little no national experience. she has never won a national election, nor has she been in the court of public opinion for any significant period prior to being picked by mccain. obama has some similarities, yes, but is set apart by his education, his senate seat, and his place in the public light since 2004.
yes, politics is theater. no, that does not mean that polls are wrong. explain why fivethirtyeight was able to predict the results so accurately if polls are so bad?
« on: December 04, 2008, 02:43:10 PM »
It's obvious you are new here (welcome). My ad-hominem attack is well deserved. Go read anything Julie has posted anywhere if you want to see a definition of ad-hominem. What I wrote was less an attack than a compliment.
Thanks Jeff! Delayed response here, but yes I have read stuff by Julie since then and am now more fully aware of the need for the ad-hom. Obnoxious trolls get no love from me.
So you know people who have participated in polls? Yes or no. I still haven't spoken to anyone that has actually participated. I am surrounded by professionals - mostly lawyers. Not one has taken part in a poll. I used to work at a fortune 500. My team was a fair representation of the average voter - some were rich, some were poor, some had lots of education, some had little. There were people from every background. Of the 15 or so on that team that I used to talk politics with, none had participated in a poll. So I will say it again - polls are relatively meaningless. They are a snapshot of a group of supposedly random people who agree to be polled and take the time to take the polls, some of which do so with malicious intent to skew the numbers. Scott Rasmussen was interviewed by a local talk host and he said 'even the a-holes should be represented'.
Yes, I actually do know people who have taken polls. The point about your small group of 15 people almost reinforces the idea of why polls can work even if they don't reach every person in America, even indirectly- because a small group can be representative of the larger population. That's how statistics work and what makes polls accurate. You don't need to be personally connected to a poll for a poll to be able to find a sample demographic similar to yours. In a country of over 300 million people it is likely that the vast majority will not be polled, but a good professional pollster will be able to still get good results anyways.
Don't make the mistake of interpreting my message as being anti-poll. It isn't. But like Scott Rasmussen, I understand that polls are a glimpse into a possibility and in no way are actual reliable predictors of anything. Polls are random. Some (i would wager quite a few) take the poll with either an intent to skew them or simply don't actually vote.
The economy DOESN'T shut down nights and weekends. But the average single 9-5 employee is at work during the day. When they get home, most don't want to talk to pollsters. If you want to look at polls to try and predict trends or to try and see how a random group feels, that's okay. But it is clearly more intelligent to view those polls with a grain of salt. The most important poll we know of is the actual election, which as we both agree is relatively unpredictable.
I will agree with your general sentiment here, that polls should be taken with a grain of salt- but disagree with your conclusion that the general election itself is completely unpredictable. Trends can be seen in the electorate at large and with enough data a very accurate prediction can be made in advance, ie: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/todays-polls-and-final-election.html
Granted a lot of other predictors got it wrong, but most polls I saw before the election were pretty close to accurate with regards to the final results.
My theory about housewives is that they tend to skew liberal. Most of us have priority issues. Some of us are single issue voters. The appeal to the lazy for Obama is palpable - he gets the most positive coverage and many in the media have decided to glorify his holiness and attack McCain. The fact is that many of us simply don't think the media has given McCain a fair shake. They pretend that they are hard on Palin because they feel it is important to vet candidates. Unfortunately for them, the facts bear out that these same media outlets all but refuse to vet Obama - to this day. Obama coverage tends to be favorable, forgiving, and chock full of spin while McCain coverage tends to be critical, harsh, and negative.
From an outsiders perspective I can say that Obama ran an objectively better campaign, was better at damage control, more responsive to the media, and had a better message from the start. Obama had a larger share of the spotlight from the beginning due to the extended length of the democratic primary. Since 2006 it has been nearly a foregone conclusion that the 08 race was the democrats to lose, and Obama naturally came in with a very large lead that was expanded by the collapsing economy and floundering McCain campaign (I like McCain and still think he ran one of the worst general election campaigns I've seen). More than anything the media is horse-race driven, the guy who is ahead on the polls will get a natural boost in coverage, not to mention who has a better handle on the media, will by default be received better in the media. The media was hard on Palin because she is an easy target, an inexperienced unknown who made mistake after mistake yet still received enormous accolades after making an acceptance speech at the convention that in my view was simply average and really nothing more than a mash-up of all the standard attack lines of the GOP to date. Add to that the first-black-president angle and a skew in coverage is all but inevitable. Go back to 2004 and you will see that both Kerry and Dean got piled on by the media because they ran horrible campaigns and made very large public relations mistakes, respectively, and were trashed by a well run campaign by W. There are real palpable reasons for the things you are complaining about, you need to look past conspiracy theories to get your answers.
The NYT printed a column by Obama which contained no preconditions. When McCain responded with his own column, all of a sudden preconditions existed. The NYT leveled unproven allegations against Sarah Palin while ignoring unproven allegations about Obama and Biden. Hell, the NYT printed a ridiculous hit piece claiming McCain had an affair with a lobbyist. They knew their source was crap and that the story wasn't true. Did they print an investigation into Obama's ties with Rezko or Ayers? Nah, they ignored it until they decided to make excuses for these stories.
And that's just the NYT.
Yes, and Fox News ran piece after piece about Ayers, frequently mixed up Obama/Osama and generally trashed his campaign the whole way. It shouldn't come as a surprise that the mainstays of ideological reporting report along the lines of their ideologies.
What about CNN's coverage of the republican convention vs. the democratic conventions? CNN talked over speeched at the repub conventions and showed images of white people in suits. Contrast that to the dem's convention, where they showed celebrity after celebrity and ignored the minorities who were hidden in the wings. Then they complained about a lack of minorities at the repub convention, which they covered with an all-white male panel.
Polls are part of the theater. Leaders lead. Followers follow. The left seems to want to follow the polls. The right tends to resist it.
All the coverage I saw of both events tried to focus on minorities and people in the crowds. It just so happens that the GOP is far more white and homogenous than the democratic party. And they weren't wearing suits, it was bucket hats with oil rigs on them. Durr. It is also well known that there are more celebrities in the democratic party than the GOP- esp this year with Barackstar.
Yes politics is theater. Yes the media is compliant, hypocritical, and absurdly easy to dupe (think Charlie Brown versus the football). Yes the GOP has been consistently better at shaping public opinion than the democrats. So? This doesn't at all support the notion that polls are inaccurate. You are making a lot of disconnected points that don't support your thesis.
It's an observation, nothing more. The same points are being made. When I was SURE Kerry was going to win, I was one of those people who didn't understand how the polls showed he was up and the vote returned a different result. Think what you want, but this thing is going to be a close one, polls be damned.
Click on the link I posted above. The polls were accurate in 04 and generally predicted Kerry's loss. JK was boring as all heck and impossible to listen to. I remember hearing him speak during the World Series and my oh my was it bad. He was unresponsive and stiff- remember Swift Boat? If he had spine or passion he would have blasted that to hell, some rich GOP backer trashing a decorate Vietnam vet in support of a son-of-an-oilman chicken hawk? Kerry rolled over and took it. Kerry also voted to authorize use of force against Iraq and never made a clear differntiation between himself and Bush on war policy. He failed to get anyone excited about voting for him. He was just about as exciting as the ketchup that propelled him to the Senate. If you really thought he was going to win you must have been living with your head in the ground. I also think it is laughable that you thought this election would defy the polls and be close, when it turned out to be on of the swiftest and cleanest elections in a while, it was pretty much done before polls on the West Coast closed.
« on: December 03, 2008, 08:04:44 PM »
Does anyone know? (would appreciate guidance)
If Obama's legal name is actually Barry Soetoro or some other name, are the election results valid?
Also, if the presidential oath of office is taken under a false name is it binding? Is the person legally president?
Yes, in order to make himself more electable Barry Soetoro changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama
« on: December 03, 2008, 03:43:20 PM »
Don't do it it's a trap! Once you get there they'll force you to pour lead into foodstuffs 20 hours a day and then harvest your organs after you collapse from exhaustion!
Those of you who entered law school wanting to get into Biglaw and are having difficulties in this economy might want to consider applying.
« on: December 02, 2008, 06:22:29 PM »
oh who cares
yes. don't feed the trolls.
« on: December 02, 2008, 06:19:03 PM »
Blah, blah, blah, I have great numbers and know how to use LSN, yet no one told me they love me today. I KNOW! I'll go on LSD and make a completely useless post so that other people can tell me how awesome I am.