• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
Public indecency laws already exist, why do we need one specifically targeting oral and anal sex? Why not add one against vaginal sex. I don't even get the point of this anymore. Cooch's law was straight forward: protect kids(allegedly) and ban "deviant" sex on paper. This one...protects kids and bans public deviant sex...which is already banned under public indecency laws. Which advocacy group wants this, considering it doesn't achieve anything.
 

Diablos

Member
Climate change sounds better than global warming imo. Sadly it also sounds less political because the right-wing had a field day with nitpicking every little thing Al Gore said last decade in the name of trying to take jabs at the 'liberal conspiracy that is global warming'.

Call it what you will, does not change the fact that it's very real
and all our fault
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yes, pandering to ignorance is a terrific way to accomplish that.

Science isn't meant to be understood by the minority. It should be understood by the majority. And calling it Global Warming doesn't correctly describe the "effects" of the change in climate.
 

Mike M

Nick N
Science isn't meant to be understood by the minority.
I find this to be a laughably obtuse sentiment. The alternative is that everyone is an expert in everything, or everything is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Science is advanced by the minority in those fields that understand it better than the majority. It's not "meant" to be understood by any particular group.
 
That's all well and good, but when you have a considerable portion of the population who deny evolution due to extreme ignorance and don't trust scientists, I believe science has failed in *that* regard. Not that it's science's fault, in and of itself, but science marches on regardless of whether people believe it or not.

You can't just say "Fuck those ignorant fucks" and take your ball and go home. You have to deal with those people. So you do need to try to push the truth as best you can. Yes, some people will remain ignorant until their deaths. But there are some people that can change and learn . . . and each small percentage change is a victory.

I'm a fan of multiple approaches. I think you need the people who try to softly get theists to believe in theistic evolution and I think you also need the in-your-face "listen to this and understand this science or you are an idiot" people like Dawkins & Krauss.
 

What the fuck? Do they even think these things through?

OK . . . I get it . . . you don't want teens participating in sex. I understand that. But tell me how criminalizing it going to help!?!?! Yeah, put the fresh young teen boy in prison . . . now THAT is going to stop him from being involved in oral sex! Great plan!

You going to publically prosecute someone for getting a BJ . . . you are going to make the kid a hero in his school!

Fucking idiots.
 

mckmas8808

Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
I find this to be a laughably obtuse sentiment. The alternative is that everyone is an expert in everything, or everything is dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Science is advanced by the minority in those fields that understand it better than the majority. It's not "meant" to be understood by any particular group.

So don't get mad when policies don't get passed to slow down the warming of the planet. Sometimes people need to get off their high horse and know when to fold them. Changing the name doesn't dumb down ANYTHING!

But to the sanctimonious one, losing the "global warming" name is like losing the life of their child. Nobody is asking to change or dumb down the science. Nope! We just want to call it Climate Change and some are up in arms because they feel like they lost.

Why is the words global warming so important?
 

Mike M

Nick N
So don't get mad when policies don't get passed to slow down the warming of the planet. Sometimes people need to get off their high horse and know when to fold them. Changing the name doesn't dumb down ANYTHING!

But to the sanctimonious one, losing the "global warming" name is like losing the life of their child. Nobody is asking to change or dumb down the science. Nope! We just want to call it Climate Change and some are up in arms because they feel like they lost.

Why is the words global warming so important?

And how are those policies designed to fight "climate change" faring any better than those that fight "global warming?" It doesn't matter what you call it, the opposing forces are huge vested corporate interests and anti-intellectual zealots who will never bend.

In insisting that we appease idiots who can't reason beyond the fact that it's snowing outside therefore global warming isn't a thing, you're buying into the framing of the opposition, and in doing so giving them control of the terms of the debate. "Climate change" is not a moniker to bring people who deny global warming because it's cold outside into the fold, it is a Frank Luntz wordsmithing to downplay the severity of the issue and make it sound like a natural, inevitable process that we are powerless to prevent.

There's nothing wrong with calling it global warming. The global average temperature is warming. It is an accurate label. Climate change is the effect of that observed fact.
 
No it's a terrible term because people don't understand why it's called that, but then a week later we have historic cold days.

Yes the globe is warming, but why label it something that only confuses people?

The globe is warming but naming it global warming is confusing. What is this?

Because science is meant to improve people's understanding of the world.

So how is accurately describing the warming as global not improving people understanding?

The FUD is to blame if anything.
 

Mike M

Nick N
I think a lot of the problem I have is that many (possibly most, but I've no data to support that) people who don't believe in anthropological global warming or evolution are just anti-science in general. It doesn't matter what you call it, they will be against it because fuck science. So why expend effort tying to appease them at all?

Should we be renaming vaccinations to something less threatening to the anti vaccination kooks?
 
A lot of people seem to think the weather affected the jobs report.

That is a huge drop in UE. 250k leaving the labor force in one month is pretty large. As is a drop in UE by 450k.

Let's hope it's the weather kinda like sandy last year screwing things up.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I think a lot of the problem I have is that many (possibly most, but I've no data to support that) people who don't believe in anthropological global warming or evolution are just anti-science in general. It doesn't matter what you call it, they will be against it because fuck science. So why expend effort tying to appease them at all?

The problem that I have with this is that liberals/scientists now using the term climate change doesn't require sacrificing the main points derived from global warming. This isn't like say, Obama removing the public option from HCR to appease right-wingers. The science is still identical to what if was before, it's just...under a different name. So if you achieve the same results and you prevent idiots like Stuart Varney saying that climate change doesn't exist cause it's cold one day, then that doesn't sound like a really bad tradeoff to me.
 
I make a point of calling people "Republicans" and not "conservatives"

I think its better to just call them reactionaries. Reactionaries want to bring society back to more primative stages and roll back on all of the social (and other) advancements that have been made. Attacking the progress we've made on race, gender, and social mobilty does just that. You are even seeing many of them doing things such as abolishing the Fed and bringing back the golden standard for the dollar. Democratic policies of the 1830s.
 
I think its better to just call them reactionaries. Reactionaries want to bring society back to more primative stages and roll back on all of the social (and other) advancements that have been made. Attacking the progress we've made on race, gender, and social mobilty does just that. You are even seeing many of them doing things such as abolishing the Fed and bringing back the dollar. Democratic policies of the1830s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revanchism

Revanchists (take the country 'we' lost back)
 

GhaleonEB

Member
The problem that I have with this is that liberals/scientists now using the term climate change doesn't require sacrificing the main points derived from global warming. This isn't like say, Obama removing the public option from HCR to appease right-wingers. The science is still identical to what if was before, it's just...under a different name. So if you achieve the same results and you prevent idiots like Stuart Varney saying that climate change doesn't exist cause it's cold one day, then that doesn't sound like a really bad tradeoff to me.

I'd also note than in the specific example of "global warming", the term climate change is also more accurate. So it's a good pivot to make, without ceding any ground to anti-science simpletons. That said, I think Mike's general point of not catering to an aggressively ignorant audience is sound.
 
A lot of people seem to think the weather affected the jobs report.

That is a huge drop in UE. 250k leaving the labor force in one month is pretty large. As is a drop in UE by 450k.

Let's hope it's the weather kinda like sandy last year screwing things up.

No, it's the idiot retailers opening on thanksgiving.

Who the fuck wants to take a job that requires you to work on thanksgiving?

I'd rather the welfare check
 
I'd also note than in the specific example of "global warming", the term climate change is also more accurate. So it's a good pivot to make, without ceding any ground to anti-science simpletons. That said, I think Mike's general point of not catering to an aggressively ignorant audience is sound.

The problem in my understanding of global warming is we have increased greenhouse gases that are causing warming which is screwing with weather patterns that cause climate changes. Even the places with the polar vortex are warming. If people can't understand averages there's a larger problem with scientific literacy

The problem is the gases and subsequent warning. The effect is climate change. Its global warming driven climate change. The fear I have with changing it to climate change (not that its already been changed) is that how do we fight climate change and turn back its effects? We need to control the weather? Its easy to spin climate change into 'not our fault/problem'. Warming and increased CO2 and other gases has a solution or at least mitigation, less of them.

Climate change makes it easier to deflect. And the people that oppose climate change/warming political do so for cultural and political reasons* and are not going to be won over by better arguments. Its been tied to our political system and is a proxy for your beliefs. Change names does nothing.

*Solutions also run into problems because of vested business and economic interests
 
No, it's the idiot retailers opening on thanksgiving.

Who the fuck wants to take a job that requires you to work on thanksgiving?

I'd rather the welfare check
I was looking for a part time job this holiday and I was really bummed out when I didn't get hired by Family Video (a video rental store. In 2014. Yeah). Then I drove past them a couple days before Christmas and saw that they are indeed open on Christmas.

Dodged that bullet
 

leroidys

Member
I think its better to just call them reactionaries. Reactionaries want to bring society back to more primative stages and roll back on all of the social (and other) advancements that have been made. Attacking the progress we've made on race, gender, and social mobilty does just that. You are even seeing many of them doing things such as abolishing the Fed and bringing back the golden standard for the dollar. Democratic policies of the 1830s.
Absolutely. Playing Victoria II of all things finally made it abundantly clear to me that there is not much conservative about the modern Republican Party, but that it is now almost a purely reactionary organization,
 

richiek

steals Justin Bieber DVDs
Maryland’s plan to upend health care spending

The Obama administration is set to announce Friday an ambitious health-care experiment that will make Maryland a test case for whether aggressive government regulation of medical prices can dramatically cut health spending.

Under the experiment, Maryland will cap hospital spending and set prices — and, if all goes as planned, cut $330 million in federal spending. The new plan, which has been under negotiation for more than a year, could leave Maryland looking more like Germany and Switzerland, which aggressively regulate prices, than its neighboring states. And it could serve as a model - or cautionary tale - for other states looking to follow in its footsteps.

“You can put Maryland in the company of Massachusetts and perhaps Vermont as the three states furthest out in trying to invent a new future for cost accountability in health care spending,” added Harvard University’s John McDonough. “Success creates a model that other states will want to look at emulating. And failure means it’s an option more likely to be crossed off the list.”
 
About roger alies
Kenny Johnson recalled to me a conversation he had in Ailes’s office around that time about the power of propaganda. Like Ailes, Johnson loved the theater. He had performed in high school plays and studied directing at Carnegie Tech, where he had become fascinated by the Nazi propaganda films of Leni Riefenstahl, especially Triumph of the Will and Olympia. “I was blown away,” Johnson remembered.“I had an enormous hatred of Hitler, but when I saw Triumph of the Will, you find yourself thinking, ‘Wow, he’s pretty cool — no, wait, I hate these guys.’” Ailes told Johnson that he too was a big fan of Riefenstahl. “He thought her work was brilliant,” Johnson said. They talked about “how she made different versions of the films for different countries not only to aggrandize the Nazis but to throw a bone to the other folks.” Ailes was especially taken by Riefenstahl’s use of camera angles. “There’s so many subtle things you see in propaganda,” Johnson said. “If you put the camera below a subject’s eye height, it’s the ‘hero shot.’ It gives him dominance. We talked about the psychological impact of the placement of the camera."


Reminded me of this: Fox News' Leg Camera

But then it was decided that Kelly would walk through the office and interview the decision team in the conference room. “This is Fox News,” an insider said, “so anytime there’s a chance to show off Megyn Kelly’s legs they’ll go for it.” The decision desk were given a three-minute warning that Kelly would be showing up.
 

Touchdown

Banned
No, it's the idiot retailers opening on thanksgiving.

Who the fuck wants to take a job that requires you to work on thanksgiving?

I'd rather the welfare check

I work at a job where I have to work on Thanksgiving. :( It's not that bad though, I make time and a half for working a holiday instead spending 6-8 hours with my dysfunctional family. I'll take the money. :p
 
What do you mean "especially for a busy holiday month"? Why does that matter, the numbers are seasonally adjusted.

Bad news is PD's specialty, other facts be damned.


But seriously. People really need to start digging into the labor participation rate. Why is it decreasing. If its not people discouraged then it might not be as 'bad' as people keep saying. The number isn't good though
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I'd also note than in the specific example of "global warming", the term climate change is also more accurate. So it's a good pivot to make, without ceding any ground to anti-science simpletons. That said, I think Mike's general point of not catering to an aggressively ignorant audience is sound.

Oh, absolutely. But we all know that we don't live in a perfect world, and so sometimes that requires doing something to accommodate the filthy masses. And as far as liberal concessions go, this one isn't too bad.
 

Mike M

Nick N
I think what I fail to articulate is that I don't necessarily have issues with calling it climate change vs global warming in and of itself, but rather the rationale behind it. Doing so because it is arguably a more accurate term, fine. Doing do because "global warming" is somehow thought to be confusing when winter still exists, or as a means to appeal to the intractably anti-intellectual, that grinds my gears.

Also, still feel that "Science isn't meant to be understood only by the minority" is a profoundly stupid phrase devoid of any actual meaning, but I at least understand what he was getting at.
 
Bad news is PD's specialty, other facts be damned.


But seriously. People really need to start digging into the labor participation rate. Why is it decreasing. If its not people discouraged then it might not be as 'bad' as people keep saying. The number isn't good though
Cant think of anything other than winterpocalypse. We pretty much lost an entire week's worth of productivity.
 
Bad news is PD's specialty, other facts be damned.


But seriously. People really need to start digging into the labor participation rate. Why is it decreasing. If its not people discouraged then it might not be as 'bad' as people keep saying. The number isn't good though

Part of it is older people retiring, no doubt. But there are also a lot of people who have simply given up trying to find a job. Given how negative polls show people feel about the economy, it's not surprising.

We're fucked. Nothing will get done as long as Obama is president, and the economy can simply drown slowly.
 
Part of it is older people retiring, no doubt. But there are also a lot of people who have simply given up trying to find a job. Given how negative polls show people feel about the economy, it's not surprising.

We're fucked. Nothing will get done as long as Obama is president, and the economy can simply drown slowly.
Who are the people who can no longer get jobs? Do they have support networks? Are they older? Those kinda questions are important how we think about tackeling the problem.

Unfortunately like you said that's 2016 at the earliest.
Cant think of anything other than winterpocalypse. We pretty much lost an entire week's worth of productivity.
Wasn't that January?
 
Part of it is older people retiring, no doubt. But there are also a lot of people who have simply given up trying to find a job. Given how negative polls show people feel about the economy, it's not surprising.

We're fucked. Nothing will get done as long as Obama is president, and the economy can simply drown slowly.

That seems slightly highly hyperbolic. There's no need to diablos over this.
 
That seems slightly highly hyperbolic. There's no need to diablos over this.

Nothing meaningful to solve the jobs problem will come out of congress. that being said the economy is recovering, just way to slowly. Its not drowing.


Also in regards to the redaction, someone brought up a good theory. They could be not a public employee so their identity aren't subject to thee subpoena. But they through out it being christie's wife but I imagine in could be anybody on the campaign staff as well. The wife angle doesn't seem to be that compelling or likely. Why her? But somebody who didn't get hired on as a public employee? Seems reasonable and explains the redaction.
 

Konka

Banned
Part of it is older people retiring, no doubt. But there are also a lot of people who have simply given up trying to find a job. Given how negative polls show people feel about the economy, it's not surprising.

We're fucked. Nothing will get done as long as Obama is president, and the economy can simply drown slowly.

I still don't understand what you do if you give up looking for a job other than go back to school...go homeless?
 
That seems slightly highly hyperbolic. There's no need to diablos over this.

How so? Washington isn't going to pass anything jobs related, outside of annual unemployment benefit extensions. I don't see any urgency from anyone in Washington to get something done.

I was talking to a conservative friend, who was lambasting Obama's "promise zone" initiative yesterday; btw Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell attended the event, as the administration plans on opening multiple zones in Kentucky. I pointed out the idea isn't that far off from Rand Paul's "economic freedom zone" idea, which my friend supports. Now he grudgingly supports the promise zone idea lol. But my point is that there's clear common ground between both ideas, yet I can't imagine Paul working with a democrat to get something done. And even if they did, the general idea isn't really going to spur employment.
 

Diablos

Member
Unless its tied to the debt ceiling its not happening
Well it looks like Reid is trying to get 3 months passed while committing to (in the same bill, even, unless I read wrong) finding a way to pay for the rest of the year, signaling that he's willing to give in to the GOP's demands. I doubt even that would be good enough.
 

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
1.10.14.3.jpg


Somewhat hard to read for precise numbers, but although December was disappointing, overall job creation was 2.186 million and 2.213 million for private sector jobs. This is the best year of job growth since 2005 and second best since 1999.

If 2013's numbers continue through the rest of Obama's presidency, he'll be on track to creating ~ 13 million total jobs. But that doesn't include the jobs lost under Obama, and so the net job growth would be 8 million, way higher than Dubya's paltry 1 million, but quite a bit under Ray-gun's 15 million. This of course assumes the economy is humming along as it is, and Republican shenanigans don't fuck things up. Also, this optimistically assumes that there won't be another crash of some kind before Obama's finished.

Perhaps the best take away here is that job growth was slightly higher in 2013 than it was in 2012, which ONCE AGAIN absolutely shits on the Republican idea of higher taxes causing all the job creators to flee to Somalia. Of course, some will argue that 2013's numbers would have been higher if it wasn't for Obama's job killing tax hikes. This could be true (though pretty unlikely), but again, this goes completely against the idea that taxes hurt job creation, so that excuse is already conceded.

I have to say though, I almost feel sorry for Dubya. He had the misfortune of inheriting a recession, and presiding over another one (though they were both deserved since they were both caused by Republican policies).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom