Support NeoGAF

[Piecake]

Never quite got my head around that. Why donate to institutions that charge an arm and a leg for education?

Because they are prestigious and it will impress other rich people. That sort of 'philanthropy' seems a lot more about vanity than it does about charity.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I always am amazed when I read how hostile the Founders would have been to the current religiousness that is in our politics (though they exploited it for their benefit).

John Adams:

And I wish that superstition in religion, exciting supersition in politics, and both united in directing military force, alias glory, may never blow up all your benevolent and philanthropic lucubrations. But the history of all ages is against you.

Oh! Lord! Do you think that a Protestant Popedom is annihilated in America? Do you recollect, or have you ever attended to the ecclesiastical Strifes in Maryland Pensilvania [sic], New York, and every part of New England? What a mercy it is that these People cannot whip and crop, and pillory and roast, as yet in the U.S.! If they could they would. . . . There is a germ of religion in human nature so strong that whenever an order of men can persuade the people by flattery or terror that they have salvation at their disposal, there can be no end to fraud, violence, or usurpation.

The multitude and diversity of them, You will say, is our Security against them all. God grant it. But if We consider that the Presbyterians and Methodists are far the most numerous and the most likely to unite; let a George Whitefield arise, with a military cast, like Mahomet, or Loyola, and what will become of all the other Sects who can never unite?

Madison

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative.

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain? To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers. or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious [sp] idea of a national religion.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J. M. on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.

Thomas Jefferson:

The advance of liberalism... [encourages] the hope that the human mind will some day get back to the freedom it enjoyed two thousand years ago."

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Your missing the point because you want to.

I understand the point, but I disagree with it, since it's founded on a misreading.

Most of it? It appeals more to public ideas

Yeah, that's called "originalism." Scalia's effort in Heller is fundamentally originalist in nature. He tries to discern what was the original public meaning of the Second Amendment. To do so, he considers the text of the Amendment along with evidence of contemporaneous beliefs regarding a right to bear arms and the significance of the Amendment itself. I just can't understand how your complaint about Heller is that it's not originalist.

and "natural rights" than it does to history surrounding the law.

The phrase "natural right" appears three times in the body of the majority opinion. Each appearance is in a quotation, used to describe the English and early American beliefs concerning a right to bear arms. Nowhere does Scalia base his interpretation of the clause on the notion that carrying a gun is a "natural right." Instead, he attempts to discern the original public meaning of the Second Amendment--which is, again, originalism.

It omits a key phrase, ignore history of the law.

The fact that you don't like Scalia's conclusion doesn't mean he ignored the prefatory clause. He spent several pages discussing it on its own. And what history do you feel he ignored, such that his method of interpretation was non-originalist?

Never mind the absolutely ridiculous "common use" argument where Scalia makes up a reason why his decision doesn't open the door to machine guns which has no basis in any ideas of the founders.

"Makes up" with half a page of citations:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

I'm not in favor of favoring one over the other. It depends on the case. For example the recent ACA case if very clear what the intent was, for the government to provide subsidies.

The intent may tell us some general information about what Congress wanted to accomplish with the law, but it doesn't tell us how Congress set out to accomplish it. Only the text of the statute tells us that. To take your example, it may reveal that Congress wanted subsidies to be available on every exchange, but it doesn't tell us whether Congress believed every state would set up an exchange (such that subsidies on HHS-established exchanges were unnecessary), or whether subsidies were intentionally limited to state-established exchanges to induce states to do so. Vague statements of intent just aren't helpful in determining the meaning of specific statutory provisions.

 

[empty vessel]

The fact that you don't like Scalia's conclusion doesn't mean he ignored the prefatory clause. He spent several pages discussing it on its own. And what history do you feel he ignored, such that his method of interpretation was non-originalist?

I guess the relevant question is whether fraudulent originalism is still originalism.

 

[Metaphoreus]

I guess the relevant question is whether fraudulent originalism is still originalism.

What about Heller do you consider fraudulent?

 

[empty vessel]

What about Heller do you consider fraudulent?

The "originalism." The historical purpose of the Second Amendment to prevent the existence of a standing army is well known, uncontroversial, and has nothing to do with personal self-defense. Is one engaged in originalism if one's originalism is substantively indefensible (like, not even close to being in the ballpark and an obvious attempt at rationalizing a desired outcome)? That's the question. If you're an originalist, it's up to you to decide how to answer that question. But if I were an originalist, I sure as shit wouldn't defend Scalia, because I would want my position to retain some credibility.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The "originalism." The historical purpose of the Second Amendment to prevent the existence of a standing army is well known, uncontroversial, and has nothing to do with personal self-defense. Is one engaged in originalism if one's originalism is substantively indefensible (like, not even close to being in the ballpark and an obvious attempt at rationalizing a desired outcome)? That's the question. If you're an originalist, it's up to you to decide how to answer that question. But if I were an originalist, I sure as shit wouldn't defend Scalia, because I would want my position to retain some credibility.

I guess you were looking for the obvious answer. Fraudulent originalism is not originalism.

 

[speculawyer]

I always am amazed when I read how hostile the Founders would have been to the current religiousness that is in our politics (though they exploited it for their benefit).
John Adams:
Madison
Thomas Jefferson:

What is really annoying is all the revisionist history cranked out by the Christian right where they try to portray the USA as a Christian nation and all the founders as nice devout Christian men who really didn't believe in slavery.

 

[speculawyer]

I guess the relevant question is whether fraudulent originalism is still originalism.

'Originalism' is just stupid and nonsensical. It doesn't really even make sense to try to divine some original intent to solve problems that did not exist at the time and could not even be have been conceived by the founders.

And it makes even less and less sense over time. If a million years from now when we aren't even the same species that we are now, would it really make sense to try to divine what some original framers of a different species and different technological age thought?

It is just silly. It is just another way for them to rationalize their conservative views and they throw it out the second that it doesn't support what they want to do at the moment. Just like their "state's rights" stuff . . . the cite it for abortion and guns and what-not . . . but as soon as it comes to pot legalization, doctor-assisted suicide, food-labeling, and other things they immediately ignore the doctrine.

 

[Oblivion]

What the hell, guys? Slow day?

 

[thepotatoman]

What the hell, guys? Slow day?

Basically Conservatives continued to complain that Obama can't use raw machismo to solve all foreign policy disputes with russia, while liberals went outside and smoked pot all day long for protest/celebration/fun.

Jon Stewart will be back tonight to tell us what to think about it.

 

[bananas]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/supreme-court-rick-scott-drug-testing

So the Supreme Court decided to not hear the case on FL's drug test shit, effectively upholding the unconstitutional ruling.



So, in conclusion: Fuck Rick Scott.

 

[WayneMorse]

Ahem, the proper term for him is "He Who Must Not Be Named."

Luckily Charlie Crist will save us all.

 

[Drakeon]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/supreme-court-rick-scott-drug-testing

So the Supreme Court decided to not hear the case on FL's drug test shit, effectively upholding the unconstitutional ruling.



So, in conclusion: Fuck Rick Scott.

Oh hey the Supreme Court was not terrible for once. And it didn't have to do with gays (the one thing Kennedy is good for).

 

[kehs]

Posted this in a recen aereo thread but:

Aereo, a startup that streams broadcast television over the internet, is headed to the Supreme Court tomorrow just two years after its debut, and stakeholders across the internet and television industries are watching closely.

The case is arguably the most important to hit the television industry since the landmark ruling over Sony’s Betamax format in 1984, which legalized home recordings. It will determine to some degree how broadcast television will be offered online in the future, and could restrict cloud storage services like Dropbox and Google Music as well.

Aereo assigns each user a tiny remote antenna stored in a warehouse full of antennas and makes a recording every time a user watches something. This unwieldy method was designed to fulfill very narrow legal conditions that supposedly allow Aereo to stream broadcast content without paying the networks for the privilege. The setup mimics "rabbit ears," the set-top antennas people use to improve reception, paired with a DVR — both ruled legal when used in a viewer’s home. Whether this is still legal when it’s used to deliver television over the internet is now up to the court to decide.

http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/21/5635768/aereo-fights-for-its-life-at-the-supreme-court-this-week

Basically Obummer and Co are behind the times, and are arguing against the ingenuity of Aerero for leveraging stupid old laws.

A wide range of groups have weighed in on the case. The Obama administration, National Football League, and the Recording Industry Association of America have submitted supporting briefs in favor of the broadcasters (and the White House will actually be participating in oral arguments). The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Dish Network (which owns the ad-skipping Hopper DVR), and small independent broadcasters have filed briefs for Aereo.

 

[speculawyer]

Posted this in a recen aereo thread but:




http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/21/5635768/aereo-fights-for-its-life-at-the-supreme-court-this-week

Basically Obummer and Co are behind the times, and are arguing against the ingenuity of Aerero for leveraging stupid old laws.

There is nothing really ingenious about it. They are basically just stretching a loophole to destroy the cable/satellite TV business model. No matter what the court decides, the legislature could just change the laws to wipe these guys out. I

 

[AndyD]

There is nothing really ingenious about it. They are basically just stretching a loophole to destroy the cable/satellite TV business model. No matter what the court decides, the legislature could just change the laws to wipe these guys out. I

How could they change the laws?

I thought personal, private, redistribution of recordings via the net was already addressed and allowed (slingbox, Tivo).

I guess they could say you don't technically own the antenna or do the actions of the capture, and hence it is not private?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

@costareports
In his newsletter today, Kristol floats Clinton-Petraeus: "a savvy friend is absolutely convinced her running mate... will be Petraeus."

Who are Kristol's 'Friends'?


Would lead to great PD fan fiction tho

 

[Oblivion]

The name of Michelle Nunn, the likely Democratic nominee, wasn’t mentioned until the final three minutes of the 90-minute debate — symbolic of where the GOP’s focus still is in the race to replace retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga. Former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel first uttered the Nunn name in her closing remarks, as she portrayed herself as the most electable conservative on the stage.

“I would just love to see Michelle Nunn try to drop the ‘war on women’ on me,” Handel said.

What are you liberals gonna do now, eh? :smug

 

[Aaron Strife]

Who are Kristol's 'Friends'?


Would lead to great PD fan fiction tho

Wet dream for Benghazi nuts.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Don't be a defense lawyer, Republicans will tar you with the crimes of you client

Disgusting ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf0-KN5Ijkk

 

[Tamanon]

It's always easier to be a prosecutor if you're going for office. Less cases to defend, and get to pretend you're "tough on crime".

 

[thepotatoman]

Don't be a defense lawyer, Republicans will tar you with the crimes of you client

Disgusting ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf0-KN5Ijkk

Unless you're Mark O'Mara defending Zimmerman, where republicans will love you and democrats will hate you.

Schools really could do a better job at teaching the importance of checks and balances in the justice system, including things like the fifth amendment. At least it seems like I haven't heard the words "tough on crime" come out of any political ad in a while.

 

[Wilsongt]

Don't be a defense lawyer, Republicans will tar you with the crimes of you client

Disgusting ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf0-KN5Ijkk

Oh lord. Of course it would be SC. They've been dragging Shaheen through the mud an awful lot ranginG from his support of the ACA to this now.

It'a not like Nikki Haley has done a bit of good for the state, but she will mostly likely win reelection. Especially from gun nuts and her recent bill that said people could carry guns into bars and restaurants.

Also, these people should be the last people complaining about someone's law record. Especially not when you have ethics charges being dropped left and right, punishing public colleges for anything gay related, not firing someone from their position even though they fucked up supremely, and removing one of the wealthiest and generous donors from board of trusties and replacing her with someone who donated $35k to your election campaign. Let's not forget sending lawyers up to defend voter id laws in a state that has a significant african american population.

 

[kehs]

“The White House has indicated it wants to consider additional clemency applications, to restore a degree of justice, fairness, and proportionality for deserving individuals who do not pose a threat to public safety,” Holder said. “The Justice Department is committed to recommending as many qualified applicants as possible for reduced sentences.”

Holder said the new effort will focus on prisoners serving longer sentences than they would if they were facing justice now, but he did not say it was limited to that circumstance.

“There are still too many people in federal prison who were sentenced under the old regime — and who, as a result, will have to spend far more time in prison than they would if sentenced today for exactly the same crime,” the attorney general said.

…

So far, Obama has been extremely restrained in his use of the clemency powers, granting only ten commutations in more than five years in office. He has granted 52 pardons, though all went to convicts who had long since completed their sentences.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed Monday that the Justice Department’s steps to invigorate the clemency process are being taken at Obama’s direction.

“The president wants to make sure that everyone has a fair shot under the clemency system,” Carney told reporters at a daily briefing. “He has asked the Department of Justice to set up a process aimed at ensuring that anyone who has a good case for commutation has their application seen and evaluated thoroughly.”

…

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...obama-drug-clemency-105865.html#ixzz2zYPZrnh9

 

[Wilsongt]

Criminal supporter in chief.

In other news, House GOP members voted to stop paying Eric Holder.

Any bets on if/when the GOP try to send Obama/Holder to trial for war crimes/treason after 2016?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

good news aaron

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../18/how-big-could-the-gop-house-majority-get/

 

[speculawyer]

Criminal supporter in chief.

In other news, House GOP members voted to stop paying Eric Holder.

Any bets on if/when the GOP try to send Obama/Holder to trial for war crimes/treason after 2016?

Why? F&F? IRS? Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!?

 

[WayneMorse]

Wow, what an absolutely boring news week. Nothing is happening.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Wow, what an absolutely boring news week. Nothing is happening.

 

[Wilsongt]

Wow, what an absolutely boring news week. Nothing is happening.

It all happened last week so that Stewart and Colbert could play catch up.

 

[Aaron Strife]

good news aaron

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../18/how-big-could-the-gop-house-majority-get/

This proves something

Spoiler

I haven't thought Democrats will win the majority for a while - but they could make smallish gains

 

[PhoenixDark]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/...obama-drug-clemency-105865.html#ixzz2zYPZrnh9

Remember all that talk about republicans jumping on the decriminalization bandwagon? I'm guessing they're about to jump right off.

 

[thepotatoman]

good news aaron

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs.../18/how-big-could-the-gop-house-majority-get/

I'm really not a fan of Monte Carlo simulations as a predictor of anything like this. It just doesn't work when every single one of the individual odds changes with a simple move in the national vote. I mean you could have 200 seats from one party with an honest 25% chance to switch to the other side when evaluated individually, but easily end up with nearly every one of those races ending the exact same way. Doing simulations can't really account for that key fact.

It's far more accurate to just line up the the individual odds in order and just straight up use the odds of the candidates around various tipping points to give the odds of those points being hit, assuming any divergences equally affect both sides and cancel each other out.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Remember all that talk about republicans jumping on the decriminalization bandwagon? I'm guessing they're about to jump right off.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/conservative-prison-reformers-silent-on-white-house-clemency

 

[Wilsongt]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/conservative-prison-reformers-silent-on-white-house-clemency

Like clockwork. So predictable.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Like clockwork. So predictable.

I believe newton discovered this concept and called it his third law

Edit: waiting for the link between vaccines, autism, the healthcare websites and Benghazi http://www.mediaite.com/tv/attkisso...tism-link-many-peer-reviewed-studies-show-it/

 

[Wilsongt]

I believe newton discovered this concept and called it his third law

Clever way to put it.

 

[speculawyer]

Remember all that talk about republicans jumping on the decriminalization bandwagon? I'm guessing they're about to jump right off.

Black tracking.

 

[Oblivion]

You know, I'd just like to see conservatives answer straight up the question of whether it's okay to shoot federal bureaucrats if they do something you don't like. No more pussyfooting around the issue.

 

[Metaphoreus]

You know, I'd just like to see conservatives answer straight up the question of whether it's okay to shoot federal bureaucrats if they do something you don't like. No more pussyfooting around the issue.

No.

Next question?

 

[Oblivion]

No.

You know durn well that wasn't directed toward he likes of you.

Next question?

What's the capital of Madagascar?

 

[Metaphoreus]

You know durn well that wasn't directed toward he likes of you.

Close enough.

What's the capital of Madagascar?

I'm not qualified to answer that question, not being myself a--what? Madagascan? Madagascaran? Madagascite? Mamamia? Madago? Mada--

Oh, fine. It's Antanananananan-- Anatanantan-- Antanarana...

I give up.

EDIT:

Spoiler

What kind of jerk embeds a message in the Reason for Editing field?

 

[Chichikov]

I'm really not a fan of Monte Carlo simulations as a predictor of anything like this. It just doesn't work when every single one of the individual odds changes with a simple move in the national vote. I mean you could have 200 seats from one party with an honest 25% chance to switch to the other side when evaluated individually, but easily end up with nearly every one of those races ending the exact same way. Doing simulations can't really account for that key fact.

It's far more accurate to just line up the the individual odds in order and just straight up use the odds of the candidates around various tipping points to give the odds of those points being hit, assuming any divergences equally affect both sides and cancel each other out.

But graphs! it's so sciencey!
Seriously though, this, and a lot of what Nath Silver does is pretty damn close to misapplication of math, and it's certainly paints the wrong picture in the minds of many of its consumers.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Has this been discussed?

From Rags to Riches to Rags

By now most of us know the basic facts of America’s rising income inequality: Since the early 1970s, the gap between the top and bottom of the income distribution has expanded significantly; what’s more, the only group to have experienced real economic gains during this period has been those in the top 20 percent, with gains heavily concentrated in the top 10, 5 and — most famously — 1 percent.

The picture drawn of the 1 percent has been that of a static population, just as the 99 percent is often portrayed as unchanging. There is a line drawn between these two groups, and never the two shall cross.

But is it the case that the top 1 percent of the income distribution are the same people year in and year out? Or, for that matter, what about the top 5, 10 and 20 percent? To what extent do everyday Americans experience these levels of affluence, at least some of the time?

In order to answer such questions, Thomas A. Hirschl of Cornell and I looked at 44 years of longitudinal data regarding individuals from ages 25 to 60 to see what percentage of the American population would experience these different levels of affluence during their lives. The results were striking.

It turns out that 12 percent of the population will find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution for at least one year. What’s more, 39 percent of Americans will spend a year in the top 5 percent of the income distribution, 56 percent will find themselves in the top 10 percent, and a whopping 73 percent will spend a year in the top 20 percent of the income distribution.

Yet while many Americans will experience some level of affluence during their lives, a much smaller percentage of them will do so for an extended period of time. Although 12 percent of the population will experience a year in which they find themselves in the top 1 percent of the income distribution, a mere 0.6 percent will do so in 10 consecutive years.

It is clear that the image of a static 1 and 99 percent is largely incorrect. The majority of Americans will experience at least one year of affluence at some point during their working careers. (This is just as true at the bottom of the income distribution scale, where 54 percent of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at least once between the ages of 25 and 60).

Interesting findings, though not really surprising.

 

[Piecake]

Has this been discussed?

From Rags to Riches to Rags



Interesting findings, though not really surprising.

Misleading

But we also examined wealth through the Federal Reserve’s 2007 Survey of Consumer Finances. This survey is much smaller in scope, and somewhat outdated (a release based on the 2010 survey is expected later this year).

But an analysis of the Fed data is still revealing in that it shows the wealth gap, as measured by net worth, is much more extreme than the chasm as measured by income.

The Times had estimated the threshold for being in the top 1 percent in household income at about $380,000, 7.5 times median household income, using census data from 2008 through 2010. But for net worth, the 1 percent threshold for net worth in the Fed data was nearly $8.4 million, or 69 times the median household’s net holdings of $121,000.

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/

 

[Metaphoreus]

Misleading



http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/measuring-the-top-1-by-wealth-not-income/

I think looking at both income and wealth offers useful information, but that one was used rather than the other doesn't render the study misleading.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Like clockwork. So predictable.

The next step: blame Obama for destroying the bipartisan spirit that once existed on the issue, effectively killing it. This will just become a 2015/2016 primary debate question during which Perry and other former advocates can accuse the WH of breaking the constitution, overstepping executive powers, etc.

That being said, I am curious what Rand Paul thinks of this.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But graphs! it's so sciencey!
Seriously though, this, and a lot of what Nath Silver does is pretty damn close to misapplication of math, and it's certainly paints the wrong picture in the minds of many of its consumers.

Speaking of 538. I think this article is proof the new site is click bait crap "science" I've not seen a worse article intentionally using data to miss the point

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/democrats-shouldnt-count-on-an-electoral-college-edge-in-2016/

The next step: blame Obama for destroying the bipartisan spirit that once existed on the issue, effectively killing it. This will just become a 2015/2016 primary debate question during which Perry and other former advocates can accuse the WH of breaking the constitution, overstepping executive powers, etc.

That being said, I am curious what Rand Paul thinks of this.

He's "traveling"

 

[Piecake]

I think looking at both income and wealth offers useful information, but that one was used rather than the other doesn't render the study misleading.

The message of the article seemed pretty clear. That being that inequality isnt THAT bad because people constantly move into the top 1%. If you look at wealth inequality that is absolutely false. And what makes more sense to look at? Yearly income or your total wealth for inequality?

Hell, the article I linked even mentioned that the top 1% in wealth are not always the top 1% in income. That doesnt mean a damn thing though because their wealth is earning them lots of interest, a large portion of which are not being treated as income since they havent sold it yet. Putting it in another way, a whole crapload of (potential) income is being hidden by the stock market