Support NeoGAF

[Oblivion]

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES0500000001?output_view=net_1mth

I think that is right.

Okay, I finally went ahead and added up all the job totals between 2012 and 2013, and last December's numbers borked everything up. 2013 created 58,000 less jobs than 2012. So I guess we can't officially gloat about the expiration of the Bush tax cuts not having an effect on job growth.

 

[zero shift]

Actually, in addition, Congresspeople think their constiuents are far more conservative than they really are. Spoiler altert - a lot of those moderates are liberal in reality.

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/05/politicians_think_americans_are_super_conservative/

They don't really back this up with any data.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

They don't really back this up with any data.

I agree. Data is always helpful.

But some things we know:

Only ~20% of people want all abortions banned

Americans largely are in favor of expanding background checks for guns

Americans largely want tax cuts for rich to expire

Support for Marijuana legalization is in the majority

Americans largely support gay marriage

Clear majority wants no education, medicare, or social security cuts

Americans are willing to pay higher taxes if that means getting everyone insurance coverage.

These are all things that conservatives typically oppose.

 

[Sibylus]

NSA phone record collection does little to prevent terrorist attacks, group [New America Foundation] says (Ellen Nakashima, WashPo)

An analysis of 225 terrorism cases inside the United States since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks has concluded that the bulk collection of phone records by the National Security Agency “has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism.”

In the majority of cases, traditional law enforcement and investigative methods provided the tip or evidence to initiate the case, according to the study by the New America Foundation, a Washington-based nonprofit group.

The study, to be released Monday, corroborates the findings of a White House-appointed review group, which said last month that the NSA counterterrorism program “was not essential to preventing attacks” and that much of the evidence it did turn up “could readily have been obtained in a timely manner using conventional [court] orders.”

 

[Metaphoreus]

Your example, I think, is one where the power of government would first be defined. Like I said, I am not arguing this: a constitution should define what an executive branch is and what a legislative branch is. My argument is that once this has been established, their limits are defined by what they cannot do. For example, in your analogy, I could construe the second statement to mean "any cake", and to buy the ingredients "n times" over, because you did not stop me from doing so.

As for the court, that is what I am saying: its implied powers are powers that are not expressly denied. I think what we are having misunderstanding with is that I am not denying the initial definition of government (something has to be first brought into existence), but within those definitions, each branch can do everything not denied from it. Hence why I said within the structure of government.

Your last point: Well, the reason is because you cannot enumerated all the things a, for example, legislative branch CAN do. You have to say what they cannot do. Kinda like a mathematical contradiction.

OK, I think we're in agreement, then. I think that you and I are just describing implicit powers differently. I thought that you meant that the government had any power not expressly prohibited, but what you meant (I now think) was that the government (and a branch of government) has any power not prohibited, so long as that power is within the initial grant of authority. To say the same in terms of my analogy, I originally thought you were arguing that my authorizing you to buy cake ingredients empowered you to buy motor oil (so long as it wasn't Brand X motor oil); now, I realize that you don't believe that.

State governments are actually quite different; they don't have delegated powers and are closer in form to governments of inherent authority.

This simply isn't true. Certainly not of Kansas:

20. Powers retained by people. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people; and all powers not herein delegated remain with the people.

I think you're getting confused because states' powers are often delegated in extraordinarily broad terms, and discussed in extraordinarily broad terms. But state governments are nevertheless governments of delegated--and consequently limited--power. Of course, the scope of power delegated to a state government is nowhere near as limited as the scope of power delegated to the federal government, but it's limited nonetheless.

 

[empty vessel]

OK, I think we're in agreement, then. I think that you and I are just describing implicit powers differently. I thought that you meant that the government had any power not expressly prohibited, but what you meant (I now think) was that the government (and a branch of government) has any power not prohibited, so long as that power is within the initial grant of authority. To say the same in terms of my analogy, I originally thought you were arguing that my authorizing you to buy cake ingredients empowered you to buy motor oil (so long as it wasn't Brand X motor oil); now, I realize that you don't believe that.

This simply isn't true. Certainly not of Kansas:

I think you're getting confused because states' powers are often delegated in extraordinarily broad terms, and discussed in extraordinarily broad terms. But state governments are nevertheless governments of delegated--and consequently limited--power. Of course, the scope of power delegated to a state government is nowhere near as limited as the scope of power delegated to the federal government, but it's limited nonetheless.

State governments have no limitations on their power other than what is placed in the constitution and/or what has been exclusively delegated to the federal government (as well as what powers the federal government has power to deny them via enshrinement of national rights). It's true that it is a "delegation" from the people--which is consistent with the concept of popular sovereignty--but it is not quite the same as delegated powers to the federal government. In other words, you wouldn't necessarily interpret a state constitution the same way you would the federal constitution. But I agree with you that the Kansas constitution does have an explicit provision reserving all powers not specifically delegated by the constitution to the people, which would make it more similar to the federal constitution. I don't think most states have a provision like that.

That said, this seems irrelevant to whether the political question doctrine should apply. And that doctrine is specifically a federal doctrine. I find it interesting that you invoked this. It's clearly a conservative judicial strategy for denying education to Americans, but I would imagine that only the most deeply-involved movement conservatives (with legal experience) would know this:

The United States system of funding schools with local property tax dollars leads to qualitative disparities across school districts. It is crucial that state courts address this problem, since no federal right to education exists. Students and parents have successfully challenged these funding systems in many states, but courts in seven states--citing the political question doctrine--have refused to review these claims. It appears that most of these states lack a coherent political question history and have used the prudential standing doctrine to avoid education claims specifically. This Note argues that the political question doctrine should not be used as an excuse to ignore educational adequacy cases in states with an affirmative constitutional right to education.​

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/jlsp/pdf/Summer2009/03ONeill.42.4(revised).pdf

 

[Metaphoreus]

That said, this seems irrelevant to whether the political question doctrine should apply. And that doctrine is specifically a federal doctrine.

As part of the Kansas case-or-controversy requirement, courts require: (a) parties must have standing; (b) issues cannot be moot; (c) issues must be ripe, having taken fixed and final shape rather than remaining nebulous and contingent; and (d) issues cannot present a political question.

As for the remainder of your post, I already explained that I neither know nor care how much the state government of Kansas funds its schools. More importantly, both that level of funding and my policy preferences are irrelevant to my argument.

 

[Rhomega Beta]

Christie's in more hot water, this time for possibly using Sandy relief funds for ad campaigns starring him and his family.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/polit...ng-sandy-ads/index.html?sr=fb011314christie9a

Washington (CNN) -- Just days after dismissing two top advisers for their roles in the George Washington Bridge scandal, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is facing questions over the use of Superstorm Sandy relief funds.

CNN has learned that federal officials are investigating whether Christie improperly used those relief funds to produce tourism ads that starred him and his family.

The news couldn't come at a worse time for the scandal-plagued Republican, who is facing two probes into whether his staff tied up traffic near the country's busiest bridge to punish a Democratic mayor who refused to endorse his successful re-election bid.

If the Sandy inquiry finds any wrongdoing, it could prove even more damaging to Christie's national ambitions. His performance during and after the superstorm has been widely praised and is a fundamental part of his straight-shooting political brand.

In the new probe, federal auditors will examine New Jersey's use of $25 million in Sandy relief funds for a marketing campaign to promote tourism at the Jersey Shore after Sandy decimated the state's coastline in late 2012, New Jersey Democratic Rep. Frank Pallone told CNN

In an August letter, Pallone asked the Department of Housing and Urban Development inspector general to look into how Christie chose to spend the marketing money approved by the department.

Neither the governor's office nor the inspector general's office has replied to CNN's request for comment on the investigation.

Pallone wrote that he was concerned about the bidding process for the firm awarded the marketing plan; the winning firm is charging the state about $2 million more than the next lowest bidder. The winning $4.7 million bid featured Christie and his family in the advertisements while the losing $2.5 million proposal did not feature the Christies.

On Sunday, Pallone told CNN that the inspector general conducted a preliminary review of the spending and concluded that there was enough evidence to launch a full-scale investigation into the state's use of federal funds. The audit will take several months, and the findings will be issued in an official report, he said.

Pallone, a 27-year veteran of the House and vocal Christie critic, said this is not about politics.

"This was money that could have directly been used for Sandy recovery. And, as you know, many of my constituents still haven't gotten the money that is owed them to rebuild their homes or raise their homes or to help," he told CNN.

Democrats slammed Christie over the summer for starring in taxpayer-funded ads as he was running for re-election in November, arguing it gave him an unfair advantage. Christie aides said at the time that the winning bid provided more value.

Last week, Christie dismissed two top aides for their involvement in closing down access lanes to the George Washington Bridge last year, a move that tied up traffic for four days. A New Jersey State Assembly committee is investigating whether the aides ordered the lane closures as political retribution, and the U.S. Attorney in New Jersey has opened a probe into the matter.

For his part, Christie has said he didn't know about the scheme and was "embarrassed and humiliated" by it. Democrats, both in New Jersey and nationally, have jumped on the scandal, saying it finally gives the nation an opportunity to see what they've known for years, that Christie is a bully who governs by fear.

But as bad as the bridge scandal is for Christie, if investigators find he improperly spent Sandy funds, it could get far worse, tarnishing the signature achievement that has made him a serious contender for the White House.

 

[RustyNails]

When it pours, it rains. It also always happens in three's. Waiting for one more scandal to round it out.

Till then, SANDYGATE/SANDGHAZI/BENSANDY

 

[empty vessel]

As for the remainder of your post, I already explained that I neither know nor care how much the state government of Kansas funds its schools. More importantly, both that level of funding and my policy preferences are irrelevant to my argument.

And I am explaining that I don't believe you. Raising the political question doctrine as a basis for upholding the legislature's denial of public education to its residents is a successful conservative legal strategy to limit public education.

Yes, Kansas courts have previously adopted the federal political question doctrine as part of their own standing doctrine. No, this does not mean that it has a "coherent political question history." And no, this does not mean that it applies here. In fact, Kansas has previously articulated standards for assessing whether the legislature has complied with its constitutional responsibility to afford the positive right to suitable financing of public education. Also see the case you linked to in your post in which the court identified the legislature's obligation to make suitable provision for finance of the public schools as a positive right, violations of which the court has a duty to remedy by "requiring the state government to act and thereby fulfill the constitutional right."

 

[pigeon]

The goal to which provision must be suited is "the educational interests of the state." This, like "suitable," isn't defined. This is part of the problem with saying that the level of funding is justiciable.

If the intention in using the phrase "the educational interests of the state" was to create a variable requirement that could be fulfilled by no funding and no law at all, what was the purpose of putting such a requirement into the state constitution? A requirement that can be fulfilled by doing nothing is identical to the lack of a requirement. Surely the mention of education in the Kansas constitution is evidence enough that the people of Kansas believed the state to have SOME educational interests.

 

[Diablos]

Christie's in more hot water, this time for possibly using Sandy relief funds for ad campaigns starring him and his family.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/polit...ng-sandy-ads/index.html?sr=fb011314christie9a

Hahaha oh shit. This could definitely stick around.

 

[Wilsongt]

Hahaha oh shit. This could definitely stick around.

This only hurts Christie with the GOP people who want him to run as their non-crazy candidate. Christie never had the GOP base, anyway. They all hate him.

 

[lednerg]

If it is proven that Christie's office did anything improper with those Sandy funds, then holy shit.

 

[RustyNails]

If it is proven that Christie's office did anything improper with those Sandy funds, then holy shit.

Will Christie say he had no idea/he was betrayed again?

 

[rocketknight]

TPM is apparently hiring a front-end dev if any of you want to take your backpats to the next level.

Also: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...trouble_existing_in_feminized_atmosphere.html

HOWARD KURTZ: So what about this bully narrative?

BRIT HUME: Well, I would have to say that in this sort of feminized atmosphere in which we exist today, guys who are masculine and muscular like that in their private conduct, kind of old-fashioned tough guys, run some risks.

LAUREN ASHBURN: Feminized?

KURTZ: Feminized.

HUME: Atmosphere.

KURTZ: By which you mean?

HUME: By which I mean that men today have learned the lesson the hard way that if you act like kind of an old-fashioned guy's guy, you're in constant danger of slipping out and saying something that’s going to get you in trouble and make you look like a sexist or make you look like you seem thuggish or whatever. That's the atmosphere in which he operates. This guy is very much an old-fashioned masculine, muscular guy and there are political risks associated with that. Maybe it shouldn't be, but that's how it is.

lol

 

[WayneMorse]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...left-elizabeth-warren-stronger-bill-de-blasio

Still pushing Warren 2016 I see.

 

[lednerg]

Will Christie say he had no idea/he was betrayed again?

"Come on, you guys, are you kidding me? You know it's getting a little ridiculous, all these accusations about me knowing what everybody on my staff is doing. What am I, the head of the NSA or something? Give me a break already with this.

Listen, those staffers were clear on the other side of the hall from my office. May as well have been on another planet, because I never heard from them. Besides, none of this matters anyway because I fired them. Problem solved. So if you don't mind, I'd really like to get back to focusing on the great state of New Jersey."

 

[TacticalFox88]

GOP's best shot and he's already torpedo'd his own chances.

GOP seems to just hand democrats victory.

 

[FyreWulff]

They'll never have their "star waiting in the wings" again as long as they keep primarying their best candidates out of existence.

 

[Diablos]

Holy shit this is really starting to blow up. The momentum over the past 72 hours alone has been pretty mindblowing.

 

[Wilsongt]

GOP's best shot and he's already torpedo'd his own chances.

GOP seems to just hand democrats victory.

No, Fox News will come up with someone to crow on about for months. They're already really ignoring Christie and still focusing on Gatesgate.

 

[Diablos]

No, Fox News will come up with someone to crow on about for months. They're already really ignoring Christie and still focusing on Gatesgate.

Good for Fox. Doesn't really fucking matter if the state is coming after him, that will generate enough press on its own independent of that joke organization.

Like I said before (and Media Matters seems to agree), Fox News has done a good job earning itself a reputation for being a heavily biased noise-making machine, and have all but lost their credibility except to those who are biased to begin with.

I'd argue CNN and their flavor of the month/week/minute/nanosecond reporting and "we gotta be first" approach is more damaging to news these days. Fox already shit the bed and everyone knows where they stand and how they operate.

 

[Diablos]

Maybe years of Issa have inured me to this stuff, but this seems... pretty minor? The bridge thing is some bullshit, but I don't know about this one.

I'd have to figure whatever McCain and Romney saw and didn't like about him isn't even known yet. This is fairly recent stuff, and just the tip of the iceberg. A politican can only go through so much of this type of ordeal and it is only (early) 2014.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

I love how my deficit hawk pro austerity friend complains about the lack of skilled jobs in the country, but hates government jobs.

A good friend of mine got a job with the department of energy right out of college and was there for almost a year. But he said there was a 100 million dollar budget cut and entry level people like him were right there in the chopping block. So now he's unemployed and can't find work.

I tell my deficit hawk friend about this, and he goes, "Well what was he doing there? Clearly they didn't think he was necessary".

And I reply, "Well its more important to look at what he's doing now. Nothing. Not developing new skills. Not moving up the ladder. Nothing."

For all we know, my friend could have become someone very productive in the private sector one day. SMH

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Will Christie say he had no idea/he was betrayed again?

He can also claim amnesia, if that doesn't work. He's got all his bases covered.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Say good bye to recess appointments and any appointments except conservatives next year the GOP wins the senate. SCOTUS is gonna strip the power.

Maybe years of Issa have inured me to this stuff, but this seems... pretty minor? The bridge thing is some bullshit, but I don't know about this one.

Using federal funds to promote your candidacy over using them to help people hit by the storm. I think just the dollar difference isn't a scandel but if they can find proof that we was using it as a campaign ad? That's bad.

 

[Diablos]

Say good bye to recess appointments and any appointments except conservatives next year the GOP wins the senate. SCOTUS is gonna strip the power.

Damn, quit Diablosing so much. :-(

 

[empty vessel]

I love how my deficit hawk pro austerity friend complains about the lack of skilled jobs in the country, but hates government jobs.

A good friend of mine got a job with the department of energy right out of college and was there for almost a year. But he said there was a 100 million dollar budget cut and entry level people like him were right there in the chopping block. So now he's unemployed and can't find work.

I tell my deficit hawk friend about this, and he goes, "Well what was he doing there? Clearly they didn't think he was necessary".

And I reply, "Well its more important to look at what he's doing now. Nothing. Not developing new skills. Not moving up the ladder. Nothing."

For all we know, my friend could have become someone very productive in the private sector one day. SMH

That the budget was cut does not mean that there was nothing for him to do. It just means Republicans didn't want him doing it, i.e., didn't want him providing services to the public.

 

[Gotchaye]

That the budget was cut does not mean that there was nothing for him to do. It just means Republicans didn't want him doing it, i.e., didn't want him providing services to the public.

It's strange (well, not really) how people who are happy to talk about how little the government can be trusted to handle money responsibly, who love the phrase "no free lunch", and so on, are very willing to believe politicians when they say that money can be saved by cutting the budget with absolutely no drawbacks.

I'm not sure what to say to such people other than to try to get them to at least acknowledge that it is possible that there are non-immediate and perhaps non-obvious benefits to certain sorts of spending, and then press them on how they can be sure that the budget cuts they're advocating won't do more harm than good in the long-run because of that. Maybe bring up Chesterton's Fence, if they're conservative-minded.

Something like fire insurance is the obvious example of something you can seem to be much better off for doing without. If you want to bring in an active maintenance angle maybe you could talk about getting regular oil changes for your car.

 

[B-Dubs]

Maybe years of Issa have inured me to this stuff, but this seems... pretty minor? The bridge thing is some bullshit, but I don't know about this one.

This will absolutely KILL him in the region. He earned a lot, and I mean A LOT, of good will from everyone in the region after the storm for bucking politics and fighting to get his state back to normal. If this is true, and he used that money to make ads for his reelection, everyone will turn on him and he'll never, never, gain their trust back.

 

[Gotchaye]

This will absolutely KILL him in the region. He earned a lot, and I mean A LOT, of good will from everyone in the region after the storm for bucking politics and fighting to get his state back to normal. If this is true, and he used that money to make ads for his reelection, everyone will turn on him and he'll never, never, gain their trust back.

Christie just shot himself in the foot?

 

[Oblivion]

Shocker. 9 out of the 10 poorest states are Republican:

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...mocrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/

West Virginia needs to stop being lazy and get a job, dang it.

 

[B-Dubs]

Christie just shot himself in the foot?

If it's true then abso-fucking-lutely. Trust me, I'm an expert.

Spoiler

Seriously though, if this is true there is no recovering from this. He's beyond done. The Boss is gonna be pissed.

 

[Wilsongt]

Shocker. 9 out of the 10 poorest states are Republican:

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-isl...mocrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/

West Virginia needs to stop being lazy and get a job, dang it.

Shocking.

 

[Captain Pants]

I work with my extremely conservative family, and today we signed up on Healthcare.gov. My parents have lost money every year for the last 7 years, and to date, have taken no money out of the business. My mom was still opposed to getting a subsidized plan when we started. My brother is a total 'shoot first and let the free market decide' libertarian, and he had the same attitude. By the end, my mom signed herself and my dad up with great coverage for a total of like $350 a month. My brother has a platinum plan for $165, and I've got a platinum plan for $101. It was pretty fun to see their reactions. They are torn between wanting to stick to their guns and being super excited that they got awesome coverage for cheap.

It turns out that the only good part about working 50 hour weeks and only making $1,400 a month is that I get a crazy good insurance plan that brings my prescription costs way down.

I wouldn't say that my family has changed their minds about the Affordable Care Act, but that is only because I don't think they'd ever admit that they've changed their minds. They were dreading it and cursing Obama this morning, and now they are pretty happy, if begrudgingly so. I wonder what public opinion will be like for Obamacare as the year goes on.

 

[Karakand]

I'm pleasantly surprised that my anti-lottery thread has been getting a much better reception than I was expecting. Maybe there's hope for us yet! I'll try to be less salty.

edit: Well, maybe not so much now. Back to being crushingly depressed about our society!

State lottery advertising is really gross. I don't live in a state / country with public liquor cartels or tobacco monopolies, but I hope those aren't as slick in their advertising as the California Lottery is.

 

[AndyD]

Well, they say in the article that using some of the funds for tourism ads was approved. Presumably it was felt that this would be helpful to the state and to the localities hit by the storm. So saying that he took funds intended to help people and instead used them for campaign ads seems like an Issa-ism.

Sure, having his family star in the ads seems kinda shady, but the scandal here hinges on a less than 10% difference in bids. And I'm not inclined to automatically assume that the lowest bid was the best one.

I think using the family could make it less shady . It's almost like he became known nationwide for fighting for NJ, and then he is pictured alongside his family in an ad for NJ. Much like a lot of travel ads are centered around activities and family and so forth. So it would be weird to just show him.

Disclaimer: I have not seen the ads with him and the family.

 

[Oblivion]

I work with my extremely conservative family, and today we signed up on Healthcare.gov. My parents have lost money every year for the last 7 years, and to date, have taken no money out of the business. My mom was still opposed to getting a subsidized plan when we started. My brother is a total 'shoot first and let the free market decide' libertarian, and he had the same attitude. By the end, my mom signed herself and my dad up with great coverage for a total of like $350 a month. My brother has a platinum plan for $165, and I've got a platinum plan for $101. It was pretty fun to see their reactions. They are torn between wanting to stick to their guns and being super excited that they got awesome coverage for cheap.

It turns out that the only good part about working 50 hour weeks and only making $1,400 a month is that I get a crazy good insurance plan that brings my prescription costs way down.

I wouldn't say that my family has changed their minds about the Affordable Care Act, but that is only because I don't think they'd ever admit that they've changed their minds. They were dreading it and cursing Obama this morning, and now they are pretty happy, if begrudgingly so. I wonder what public opinion will be like for Obamacare as the year goes on.

Did you ask your family why they chose to participate in soshulized medicine instead of just paying the fine?

Congrats on your plan, btw.

 

[InsaneZero]

Spoiler

Seriously though, if this is true there is no recovering from this. He's beyond done. The Boss is gonna be pissed.

Barring a smoking gun from the Bridgeghazi, I can't really see a single incident this far from 2016 being the one thing that killed Christie. I predict that his chances will die from a thousand cuts, most inflicted during the primary. Chris Christie might be stupid enough to do something that can potentially cause major self-inflicted injuries, but he seems to be adept enough to minimize the damage.

Christie's nature and personality is not something that he can change easily though, so if he falls it's most likely due to the consistency of his actions instead.

 

[Captain Pants]

Did you ask your family why they chose to participate in soshulized medicine instead of just paying the fine?

Congrats on your plan, btw.

I try not to get into it with them. They are really sweet people when they aren't pissed off about politics, so I try not to fan the flames too much. When you work with your family, you learn to do everything you can to keep things harmonious.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Well, they say in the article that using some of the funds for tourism ads was approved. Presumably it was felt that this would be helpful to the state and to the localities hit by the storm. So saying that he took funds intended to help people and instead used them for campaign ads seems like an Issa-ism.

Sure, having his family star in the ads seems kinda shady, but the scandal here hinges on a less than 10% difference in bids. And I'm not inclined to automatically assume that the lowest bid was the best one.



I don't know how much you know about the Jersey Shore...

I agree. They only way this is bad is of there is an email or proof he only picked the company they did was because they were featuring the him and his family. That's a scandal because he'd be using the funds for personal gain.

There has to be some thing that at least gave rise to questions and this investigation. This isn't congress but the us attorney office. They don't go off breitbart articles.

These investigations also are far reaching. Blago had is phone tapped in regards to something completely different. So there is also the chance something else comes up.

 

[speculawyer]

LOL, It looks like she is interviewing Dr. Strangelove.

 

[KingK]

First day of the semester today, and I find out my Labor Market Econ prof is a loony Austrian. He managed to rail against Obamacare, the EPA, the minimum wage, and the TSA in the first class lol. The TSA complaints I could actually agree with slightly at first, but then he characterized all government jobs as useless like TSA patdown people, and when he was bitching about his experience with the TSA last weekend he actually said "The airport was like a third world country! Nobody spoke english! And my wallet showed up on the scan so they tried asking me questions and I thought it was ironic that I was being considered a threat and asked questions by a guy with an accent! The four of them had a combined IQ of 300." Then the class clearly got a little uncomfortable at his apparent xenophobia, and he tried to make up for it by telling a Chinese student that he has a terrible Chinese accent, so he has no problem with people with accents.

Ought to be a fun semester.

 

[B-Dubs]

First day of the semester today, and I find out my Labor Market Econ prof is a loony Austrian. He managed to rail against Obamacare, the EPA, the minimum wage, and the TSA in the first class lol. The TSA complaints I could actually agree with slightly at first, but then he characterized all government jobs as useless like TSA patdown people, and when he was bitching about his experience with the TSA last weekend he actually said "The airport was like a third world country! Nobody spoke english! And my wallet showed up on the scan so they tried asking me questions and I thought it was ironic that I was being considered a threat and asked questions by a guy with an accent! The four of them had a combined IQ of 300." Then the class clearly got a little uncomfortable at his apparent xenophobia, and he tried to make up for it by telling a Chinese student that he has a terrible Chinese accent.

Ought to be a fun semester.

Any chance of another professor?

 

[speculawyer]

I work with my extremely conservative family, and today we signed up on Healthcare.gov. My parents have lost money every year for the last 7 years, and to date, have taken no money out of the business. My mom was still opposed to getting a subsidized plan when we started. My brother is a total 'shoot first and let the free market decide' libertarian, and he had the same attitude. By the end, my mom signed herself and my dad up with great coverage for a total of like $350 a month. My brother has a platinum plan for $165, and I've got a platinum plan for $101. It was pretty fun to see their reactions. They are torn between wanting to stick to their guns and being super excited that they got awesome coverage for cheap.

It turns out that the only good part about working 50 hour weeks and only making $1,400 a month is that I get a crazy good insurance plan that brings my prescription costs way down.

I wouldn't say that my family has changed their minds about the Affordable Care Act, but that is only because I don't think they'd ever admit that they've changed their minds. They were dreading it and cursing Obama this morning, and now they are pretty happy, if begrudgingly so. I wonder what public opinion will be like for Obamacare as the year goes on.

Congrats on the healthcare plans!

Man, that is such a weird dynamic of "OK, I'm getting nice access to affordable health care now . . . but I still HATE that guy! Grrrr." How does that work? Cognitive dissonance? Rationalizing themselves a 'special case' where it is OK for them but other people shouldn't get this?


I still think a lot of hardcore conservatism boils down to single issue things like abortion or gun control. Some people will oppose policies that are good for themselves brought to them by politicians who support single issue things that they can't change on . . . like abortion or gun control. So they do cognitive dissonance, create an exception why it is OK for them, or just go into denial.

In some ways, it is admirable . . . they won't sell out their position on something like abortion just for cheap health insurance . . . but in other ways, it is just stupid . . . why not push for your party to continue opposing abortion AND provide a healthcare solution? The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[speculawyer]

First day of the semester today, and I find out my Labor Market Econ prof is a loony Austrian. He managed to rail against Obamacare, the EPA, the minimum wage, and the TSA in the first class lol. The TSA complaints I could actually agree with slightly at first, but then he characterized all government jobs as useless like TSA patdown people, and when he was bitching about his experience with the TSA last weekend he actually said "The airport was like a third world country! Nobody spoke english! And my wallet showed up on the scan so they tried asking me questions and I thought it was ironic that I was being considered a threat and asked questions by a guy with an accent! The four of them had a combined IQ of 300." Then the class clearly got a little uncomfortable at his apparent xenophobia, and he tried to make up for it by telling a Chinese student that he has a terrible Chinese accent, so he has no problem with people with accents.

Ought to be a fun semester.

Holy shit . . . sounds like real asshole. Yeah, I guess if you have an accent then you can't be a real 'merican!

 

[Zero Hero]

First day of the semester today, and I find out my Labor Market Econ prof is a loony Austrian. He managed to rail against Obamacare, the EPA, the minimum wage, and the TSA in the first class lol. The TSA complaints I could actually agree with slightly at first, but then he characterized all government jobs as useless like TSA patdown people, and when he was bitching about his experience with the TSA last weekend he actually said "The airport was like a third world country! Nobody spoke english! And my wallet showed up on the scan so they tried asking me questions and I thought it was ironic that I was being considered a threat and asked questions by a guy with an accent! The four of them had a combined IQ of 300." Then the class clearly got a little uncomfortable at his apparent xenophobia, and he tried to make up for it by telling a Chinese student that he has a terrible Chinese accent, so he has no problem with people with accents.

Ought to be a fun semester.

Kindly remind him that if it weren't for government backed student loans, he probably wouldn't have his job.

 

[KingK]

Any chance of another professor?

I just checked, but it looks like he's the only prof for this class.

The top of the syllabus has a list of recommended blogs to follow, including Cafe Hayek, The Becker-Posner blog, and a variety of WSJ blogs.

 

[B-Dubs]

I just checked, but it looks like he's the only prof for this class.

The top of the syllabus has a list of recommended blogs to follow, including Cafe Hayek, The Becker-Posner blog, and a variety of WSJ blogs.

The WSJ thing isn't that big a deal, my professor made us sign up for a subscription to the paper (at a heavily discounted student price) and he was the most hardcore liberal I've met. Then again he did tell us to ignore the OP-ed section.