The Goat Pen

Click on the Christie video bout half way down the page....you gotta love this guy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33638379?q= ... an%20Party

Only a couple of years ago, if you were a conservative Republican, and you expressed any doubts about the Iraq war, you were asking to be tarred and feathered by your peers. Even today, her inbox will probably be filled with angry e-mails saying, "You either support the troops or you are emboldening the terrorists!" and "Have you forgotten?" I expect t-shirts saying "FUPN" to be sold by Toby Keith apparel inc.

Toemeesleather wrote:Click on the Christie video bout half way down the page....you gotta love this guy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33638379?q= ... an%20Party

Christie has always been my dream candidate. He's a cross between two of my heroes: Ronald Reagan and Tony Soprano. Since he's not running in '12, I really hope he runs in '16.

Professor Tiger wrote:Great article on the Republican debate from Peggy Noonan (or, as I think of her, the female George Will):

Erroneous. There can be nothing interesting related to a GOP debate in June of 2011.

When it comes to measuring the combination of unemployment and inflation, it doesn’t get much more miserable than this.

In fact, misery, as measured in the unofficial Misery Index that simply totals the unemployment and inflation rates, is at a 28-year high, reflective of how weak the economic recovery has been and how far there is to go.

The index, first compiled during the soaring inflation days of the 1970s by economist Arthur Okun, is registering a nausea-inducing 12.7—9.1 percent for unemployment and 3.6 percent for annualized inflation—a number not seen since 1983. The index has been above 10 since November 2009 and had been under double-digits from June 1993 through May 2008.




Yes, we're having another Jimmy Carter economy.

These interest rates are a bitch!

Unemployment, inflation and interest rates were all worse under Carter. Right now, Obama is merely the second worst economic president since the Depression.

But that could change. If Greece defaults, and then Ireland, and then (especially) Spain, then the EU melts down. And they might drag us down with them. So get out there and buy some baklava and gyros and ouzo before it's too late.

Im betting you wash your hands after you pee. Weirdo.

Jungle Rat wrote:Im betting you wash your hands after you pee. Weirdo.

:::Makes note to never shake Rat's hand:::

Rat doesn't have hands. He has hooks.

I'm sure he's a hack, but...

Book: Liberal Media Distorts News Bias

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washin ... -news-bias

The liberal bias of the mainstream media tilts so far left that any outlets not in that political lane, like the Drudge Report and Fox News Channel, look far more conservative than they really are, according to a UCLA professor's new book out next month.

Well okay he is a Prof at UCLA:

Tim Groseclose is the Marvin Hoffenberg Chair of American Politics. He received his PhD in 1992 from Stanford's Graduate School of Business. His research focuses mainly upon Congress, media bias, and mathematical models of politics. His work has appeard in journals such as the American Economic Review, Quarterly Journal of Economics, American Political Science Review, American Journal of Political Science, and Journal of Politics. He has held faculty positions at Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, the Ohio State University, Stanford University, and Caltech. One of his most recent articles, "A Measure of Media Bias," was the object of discussion in several media outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, Investors' Business Daily, CNN's The Situation Room, Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News' Hannity and Colmes, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson Show, and CSPAN's Washington Journal.

Yeah he seems like a bit of a hack when he's claiming Drudge leans slightly liberal. On his scale, the lower the score the more conservative, with 50 being centrist. Drudge supposedly scored a 60, closer to NPR than "centrist". I'm sure Drudge will appreciate those results.

He also claims the following:

"Media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn't exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent, instead of losing 53-46."

This seems like total bullshit to me. How can anyone tabulate the exact percentage points "liberal media bias" aids Democrats, and if it even does at all? The same guy claims he can give an exact figure as to how many percentage points "good facial structure" is worth in an election.

I am definitely now confused as to why we are in Libya but not Syria. And why no one, not Obama, not the Republicans, no one in Europe, seems much interested in toppling Assad (supposedly one of our greatest enemeies in the world today) at a point where he's teetering.

John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent, instead of losing 53-46

LOL Brilliant - the hoople heads will lap that up for sure.

I bet he's already projected what his book sales will be and what appearances he can count on...he ought to release those projections, since they're verifiable (unlike his dreamscape wrt those McPalin numbers).

Dr. Strangelove wrote:Yeah he seems like a bit of a hack when he's claiming Drudge leans slightly liberal. On his scale, the lower the score the more conservative, with 50 being centrist. Drudge supposedly scored a 60, closer to NPR than "centrist". I'm sure Drudge will appreciate those results.

He also claims the following:

"Media bias aids Democratic candidates by about 8 to 10 percentage points in a typical election. I find, for instance, that if media bias didn't exist, John McCain would have defeated Barack Obama 56 percent to 42 percent, instead of losing 53-46."

This seems like total bullshit to me. How can anyone tabulate the exact percentage points "liberal media bias" aids Democrats, and if it even does at all? The same guy claims he can give an exact figure as to how many percentage points "good facial structure" is worth in an election.

I knew you'd love it, but how can you claim he's a hack without knowing anything about his methodology?

The reason Drudge got the rating it did was because most of the articles he links to are from the "mainstream" media who then cite the liberal think tanks that determine the rating.

The percentages in the last election seem a bit high to me, but I'm not a statistician. Much of his work is spent on developing models: His research focuses mainly upon Congress, media bias, and mathematical models of politics. And of course: He has held faculty positions at Carnegie Mellon University, Harvard University, the Ohio State University, Stanford University, and Caltech.

I personally think its absurd to think that media bias has no effect at all on elections. Would I be surprised to see as large of an affect he does? Yes. I have stated 2-3% in the past. Well if you add 3% to MCain in a close states (which means you have to subtract 3% from Oprama) and MCain wins FL, OH, IN, NC and VA is within 0.3%. Without VA it narrows to 292-246 and with 2012 electoral results and its 286-252. If VA flipped it would 273-265 with 2012 numbers. In 92 a 3% effect flips 11 states and and GHWB beats Clinton. So it doesn't take a huge shift to flip several states and make things much closer or change

I did look at his methodology earlier and doesn't it seem a bit flawed?

1) It's not at all clear how he determines what a liberal or conservative thinktank is other than his personal opinion. Therefore he can swing the stats in any way he pleases by determining nearly every source is "liberal". And just because you cite a "liberal" source 60% of the time doesn't make you a liberal news outlet. Drudge creates his own headlines which are often extremely different, sarcastic, or mocking of the headlines in the links he provides. He also chooses his news stories very carefully, often burying or ignoring stories that don't fit what he wants to say (which MSM does as well). But this Professor's study considers none of that.

Let's use common sense for a moment and ask ourselves if we think Drudge is politically closer to NPR than he is to the center?

2) More academics tend to lean liberal than lean conservative, both because higher education tends to choose more people like themselves and also because conservatives (if you're honest about it) are less drawn to teach. Academics tend to be those who make up the bodies of the thinktanks. So if you're going to cite thinktanks, even conservative ones like the Heritage Foundation, you're liking to be drawing from primarily academics.

puter - serious question

I've never heard you complain about local media bias here in God's Country aka East Tennessee - probably because conservatives dominate the print and the airwaves around here.

I'm curious - do you think the media around here steered East Tennesseans towards conservatism...or do you think it was the other way around - that the right-leaning populace induced the papers and radio stations to lean right with their opinions and content?

Toemeesleather wrote:When it comes to measuring the combination of unemployment and inflation, it doesn’t get much more miserable than this.

In fact, misery, as measured in the unofficial Misery Index that simply totals the unemployment and inflation rates, is at a 28-year high, reflective of how weak the economic recovery has been and how far there is to go.

The index, first compiled during the soaring inflation days of the 1970s by economist Arthur Okun, is registering a nausea-inducing 12.7—9.1 percent for unemployment and 3.6 percent for annualized inflation—a number not seen since 1983. The index has been above 10 since November 2009 and had been under double-digits from June 1993 through May 2008.

Yes, we're having another Jimmy Carter economy.

From WWII to the very early 70s, the amount of actual "work" required to put food on the table for an entire family was less and less. From that perspective only, 1972 was the peak of human existence in the United States. I believe that it only required 36.5 hours of work to provide for a household of five. People got married younger and younger. College was still dirt cheap (because so few people bothered applying.) The Federal government had a budget surplus. Motown was booming and Michigan was in it's glory days!

Then OPEC hit in 1973 and this wonderful American Way of Life trend started reversing. It's been all UPHILL from there.

The mid to late 1970s, kind of marked the beginning of the end of the one-income-household, for households where the breadwinner lacked a college education. It used to be, that you went to high school, finished (or dropped out), got a labour job at the factory/mill/textile-mill/plant/quarry/warehouse in town and that provided sufficient earning power to pay for the mortgage on the 3-bedroom 2-bath ranch, the one car payment, and put food on the table for a family of five. Then OPEC hit in 1973 (was exacerbated again by OPEC in 1979), with gas price increases we had inflation (a 6% interest rate on a mortgage in 1972 became 16% in 1978), Japan started selling people cheaper cars (that got great gas mileage) cannibalizing a now crime-ridden Detroit that could not convert fast enough, China and Southeast Asia non-union sweatshops started making shit that union men made here in this country (for one - one-hundredth the price), and that changed everything, forever.

Mills closed. Factories closed. Plants closed. And they remain closed today. Just roam around New England and look at all the boarded up plants and factories that haven't had a single wage earner in them for over 3 decades. Very sad. A major "conversion" happened in this country through the 70s and 80s. Things were not made-in-America anymore. We had the "misery index" instead.

A man couldn't just get a "lifetime job" at age 18 anymore. Marriage was delayed for men (until they finished college) and women became much more choosy of their life partners (holding out for the most educated young men.) This created a terrible resentment of the working man towards women in still functioning mill towns (that was beautifully dramatized in one bar scene in the 1982 movie An Officer and a Gentlemen.) This rush/demand for higher-education started pushing college tuition rates to increase by 10-15% per year (and that hasn't stopped!) Office/Professional work increased during the Reagan years, thank goodness. Unfortunately, professional work increases dramatically increased the prices of things that non-professionals needed (and once could afford back in the day.) If you wanted to support a family of five, you needed multiples more money as that same 3-bedroom 2 bath ranch that went for $21,000 in 1971 was now $60,000 by 1982 and $119,000 by 1985!

By the late 1980s (very early 1990s), life for the high school drop-out (or high school graduate with no college education) was that of poverty. You could enlist and get $600/month as an E-1. Or, you lived at home with your parents if your parents were good enough to let you stay. You could find jobs but none that provided anywhere near the kind of money to support a mortgage payment on a 3-bedroom house (let alone an entire household.) The only good news is that interest rates on mortgages were now returning to sane single digit level (9.25% instead of 12%.) Unfortunately, those $119,000 houses were now $200,000 or more (unreachable goal on a $6/hour job.) For the labourer wise enough to plan ahead save a little money, he can afford a mortgage on a 1-bedroom condo.

Fast forward to today....

Marriage (for all practical purposes) is non-existent in the inner city. It has simply ceased to exist. Read that moving and haunting book American Dream where you will see three generations of welfare single-moms who hadn't even been to a wedding. Lifetime marriage in the suburbs is now only a privilege for those with above average paychecks (both men AND women) and for those who live check-to-check, divorce rates tip 60% - 70%. 35% of the children in this country are born, illegitimate. 75% of African-American children are born illegitimately.

Colleges and Universities are perfectly financially "Bi-Polar" ($50,000/year in tuition for the students whose parents are both college educated and each work 50/hours a week in an office OR 100% financial aid for the students who come from single-family homes with little to no income, subsidized entirely by the students paying full tuition) and those unfortunate kids in the middle spend 3-4 years at junior college and finish part-time getting their BA after 7 years of study, functioning households are tiny (1 adult with no spouse, a married couple, or perhaps a married couple with one spoiled child), primary and secondary education is a joke (as too many tenured teachers are legacies of "tracking" where 60% of the students aren't expected to attend college, even though 100% need to), and no one, NO ONE AT ALL expecting to work at just one company for their entire life (living every day on egg shells as if that day could be their last day of employ at their current employer.)

Dr. Strangelove wrote:I did look at his methodology earlier and doesn't it seem a bit flawed?

1) It's not at all clear how he determines what a liberal or conservative thinktank is other than his personal opinion. Therefore he can swing the stats in any way he pleases by determining nearly every source is "liberal". And just because you cite a "liberal" source 60% of the time doesn't make you a liberal news outlet. Drudge creates his own headlines which are often extremely different, sarcastic, or mocking of the headlines in the links he provides. He also chooses his news stories very carefully, often burying or ignoring stories that don't fit what he wants to say (which MSM does as well). But this Professor's study considers none of that.

Let's use common sense for a moment and ask ourselves if we think Drudge is politically closer to NPR than he is to the center?

2) More academics tend to lean liberal than lean conservative, both because higher education tends to choose more people like themselves and also because conservatives (if you're honest about it) are less drawn to teach. Academics tend to be those who make up the bodies of the thinktanks. So if you're going to cite thinktanks, even conservative ones like the Heritage Foundation, you're liking to be drawing from primarily academics.

Fair points IMO.

bluetick wrote:puter - serious question

I've never heard you complain about local media bias here in God's Country aka East Tennessee - probably because conservatives dominate the print and the airwaves around here.

I'm curious - do you think the media around here steered East Tennesseans towards conservatism...or do you think it was the other way around - that the right-leaning populace induced the papers and radio stations to lean right with their opinions and content?

I don't really watch much local news. I am rarely on the Sentinel website or Tennessean unless its for Sports.

I get the weekend paper, but don't pay much attention to it other than sports section. Although the editorial section seems to have an equal number of columns from left and right. Compared to the Dayton Daily News in OH I guess the KNS would be right leaning, but I don't read it enough to be certain.

I don't think local media has much of an effect on statewide/national politics unless they break a big story. When you watch debates and then the post debate spin/analysis its the national media that is watched (ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc). Press conferences (If Oprama even has them anymore), addresses, state of the union, campaigns etc are all viewed through a national lens. Local media affects local races IMO.