11.16.2009

Monday Miscellany

-- Recruitment efforts are becoming seriously problematic for the Democrats. Take North Carolina, for instance, where former State Senator Cal Cunningham now says he won't run to challenge Richard Burr, the latest in a long line of Democrats to do so. Democrats still have a reasonably decent candidate in Secretary of State Elaine Marshall, but this a big step down from Roy Cooper or possibly Heath Shuler, neither of whom were tempted to enter the running. Even if there's some late swing of "momentum" back toward the Democrats next summer as a result of an improving economy or whatever else, they will probably have squandered a couple of opportunities based on fears about the 2010 environment that emerged earlier in the process.

-- Another disappointment for the Democrats: Kay Bailey Hutchison is not going to resign her seat to run for governor, at least until/unless she wins the primary. This is a defensive, and probably smart move for KBH, who appears unlikely to defeat incumbent Rick Perry -- but for all intents and purposes it takes another second-tier pickup opportunity off the board for the Dems.

-- Bill Belichick is not dumb, provided that his goal is to help the New England Patriots win football games. Instead, much of the NFL's conventional wisdom on when to go for it on fourth down is horribly, horribly wrong -- teams are way too conservative and punt way too often. This is the one case where 9-year olds playing Madden -- it's no fun to punt in a video game -- quite literally make better decisions than most NFL head coaches. With that said, since the same flawed conventional wisdom can govern hiring and firing decisions, there may be a price to be paid for unconventional (if statistically correct) playcalling; see also Marty Mornhinweg.

-- Never, ever, for as long as you live, rent a car from Thirfy, who are every bit as cheap as their name implies. Our rental car here in San Francisco got broken into over the weekend and -- while fortunately all of our luggage was out of the vehicle -- the GPS unit that we'd rented with the car was taken. Even though we were paying something like $200 in insurance coverage, the GPS unit was apparently not covered. Not only that, but the replacement cost they want to charge us for the unit ($500) represents something like a 100% markup off what it would cost to buy an equivalent device at Best Buy, which they say we can't do since it won't contain their "custom" software. So these guys are turning burglary into a profit center. Skip over the Thrifty counter the next time you're at the airport rental counter. And by the way, think twice before you buy insurance for your rental car -- the coverage will often be duplicative of what you're already getting through your credit card company or through your existing auto insurance.

-- More on Sarah Palin later today, as I'm preparing my rebuttal to Tom's piece.

124 comments

Tony C. said...

Ouch on KBH. As a Democratic Texan, I am hoping for Bill White. The guy has been re-elected Mayor of Houston twice with like 90% of the vote.

Dwight said...

@Tony C.

I bet Bill White's presense is figuring heavily into her choices. He's got a real chance at statewide, not something that's been common with Democratic candidates statewide in Texas in some time.

With that said, since the same flawed conventional wisdom can govern hiring and firing decisions

This. Belichick has a lot more slack because, although not exactly a model human being, his ability to work the win is fairly widely recognized. Of course he's also saying he's got more faith in his offense than his defense. Football is a headgame, too. So implications do go past those percentages. Still, the value in winning today is huge in the NFL where you have such a limited number of games in the season.

More on Sarah Palin later today

Page hits are running a little low and you feel the need to juice them a bit? :)

RAJ said...

Bellichek's completion on 4th down attempts vs the Colts are startling. Eight out twelve attemptd were sucessful in regular season play vs Colts were successful. He's four out four vs Colts in playoff'.s. This was a no brainer but the Monday Morning QB's are having a field day blasting Bellichek.

The Jaguars vs the Jets resulted in the Jags taking a knee three times at the one yard line and kicking the game winning FG as time expired. The Jags were hailed as geniuses for not letting the Jets gain another possesion despite leaving a 7 point TD on the board.

Had the kick been missed or blocked, the same Monday Mornin B's would be ripping the Jags for 'leaving points on the board'.

John said...

Belichick played a high-risk, high-reward strategy, and it happened not to pay off. This is perfectly defensible in his situation, since he probably won't get fired for it.

But like Nate points out, there's a price to be paid for going against the conventional wisdom, especially if you can have a great roster and go .500 for the season out of sheer bad luck. So Belichick did the right thing, but it might not be the right thing for, say, Mike Smith.

That said, I'm a Georgia Tech student, so I've gotten used to ballsy plays over the past couple years...

mngoose33 said...

@Dwight:

"Football is a headgame, too. So implications do go past those percentages."

The Romer paper Nate linked to does not support this belief. He tested for the so-called "momentum" effect (i.e., going for it on 4th down and failing has a dampening effect that detracts from the team's performance in subsequent plays). He didn't find any statistically signifanct effect (in fact, the effect on subsequent team performance was slightly positive).

The situation last night is a little different than the "go for it vs. kick it" decision Romer analyzed because it did not involve going for a TD vs. kicking a field goal. A key factor in those types of decisions is that even if you fail on 4th and goal from the 2, your opponent gets the ball back in bad field position. The opposite was true last night.

Nate's overall point is valid, however; the statistical evidence overwhelming favors going for the TD (or trying to extend a drive rather than attempt a long field goal) far, far more often than NFL teams currently do.

gjdodger said...

Marty was wrong because the rules of the game had changed. It was no longer a good bet to kickoff in overtime after they moved the kickoff back to the 30. It had been done infrequently with some success before then.

y2roby said...

Although I am a Bills fan (yes I know, pity me) and can't stand the way Belichick often runs up the score, I have to agree in this case that he made the right call. I felt sure when they decided to go for it that that would be it. Wes Walker seems to be able to get 2 yards and more at will when he needs to. They have lots of other options too. They nearly did make it. And the ESPN commentators are just full of themselves sometimes. Thanks for letting us talk football Nate!


On Palin: one of her first stops is in Rochester, NY, which is near where I live. Who thinks I should try to get an autograph?;)

Dale said...

Gutsy call by New England.

Did anyone read "think twice before you buy insurance for your rental car"? This is the same approach we should be taking toward health care reform - "The correct response is to insure yourself only against the big risks..."

Bradford said...

Bellichek's defense couldn't stop the Colts in any case, thus he made the right choice and called the right play, and I think he got the first down and got a bad spot. That said, I hate the Pats, so good for the Colts!

The dems are losing before they start, that is bad news, but hopefully the losses will not be large.

Bart DePalma said...

Nate:

Don't give up your day job for football coaching.

Going on 4th and 2 when you are on the opponent's 30 to 40 yard line is a gutsy call to continue a drive.

Going on 4th and 2 when you are on your own 28 with Payton Manning moving against your defense is the height of arrogance. Bellichek risked giving Manning an extra 40 to 50 free yards and lost the gamble and the game.

Bellichek tried that nonsense against the Miami Dolphins twice in one game a couple years back and failed both times. There are times when I think Bellichek is taking his headlines too seriously.

filistro said...

test

filistro said...

Speaking of miscellany, here's a hypothetical that confounds me (I'm no mathematician) but I'm sure you will all know the answer to:

I am playing draw poker on a video machine in a casino, betting $1 a hand. If I were to bet $2 a hand, all wins would be doubled. After an hour of play I am up $10. If I had been betting $2 every hand, would I only be up $20 instead of $10?

That just doesn't seem right somehow.

Thank you.

Pinkybum said...

@BDP

Field position is one of the factors that goes into determining to go for it on fourth down or not. Another one is how far you have to go (of course)

Jacob said...

Dale said...

"This is the same approach we should be taking toward health care reform - The correct response is to insure yourself only against the big risks..."


But a big risk is different when it's losing $500 versus your life. And as with rental car insurance, we need to be sure that these big risks are really insured when we buy the policies.

brian said...

This is why sentate/house predictions so far out is ridiculous. Alot depends on recruitment/retirements....which depend on candidates perception of voter mood. My guess is any decent Repub is chomping at the bit to run next year, while in 06/08, good Repub candidates were leery to run.

There has gotta be some Dem retirement announcements coming soon.

Jeremy said...

@Bart What about all the times he succeeded? When you play the odds, you're playing the odds, and sometimes it will fail. I think basic math escapes you and I bet Nate would make a better play calling coach than 99% of the coaches out there.

Jacob said...

With Belichick though, the question is what are the odds of making the first down versus the odds of the Colts moving 70 yards in two minutes. It's not necessarily a bad decision.

Although I'd say anything that results in the Pats losing works out pretty well for football overall.

Dwight said...

@mngoose33

That isn't what I was talking about. It's a matter of the subtext of "you are a POS defense", it's a trust issue. Although in this case, it's really more "I'll take my offense vs Colts defense over Colts offense vs my defense".

It's not the immediate following plays, it's next week and next month.

Jacob said...

Blogger brian said...

"There has gotta be some Dem retirement announcements coming soon."


As far as the Senate goes, probably not. Even in the House though, we have a relatively young caucus, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some tainted or unpopular Reps--Murtha, Kanjorski, and a couple others bowing out and leaving vulnerable seats. I doubt it's very many though.

Generally, it's the minority party that sheds members after losing a chamber, i.e. 1996 and 2008. The GOP retirement trend continues in the Senate. No one likes to be in the minority, and many find it a good reason to retire.

If in some disastrous scenario the GOPers take the House or come close though, I think we would see a large number of Dem retirements in 2012.

Jason S said...

I am a huge Belichick fan.

He is not dumb. NFL teams do punt way too often.

BUT his decision last night was both statistically and pragmatically WRONG.

I couldn't believe it when they actually snapped the ball.

If they had made it on 4th, his decision would still have been wrong.

Probably the greatest coach the game has ever seen made a catastrophically bad decision last night which will have long term repercussions. Lets not excuse it just because lesser coaches punt too often.

Nick said...

I think it is too early to call Kay out in Texas, and regardless, it is claimed that she will leave her seat win or lose.

The early polls had her crushing Perry, and this race is still a long way out, I don't think it's fair to call it yet.

Mr. Universe said...

@filistro

You probably missed this the other day.

I wanted to warn you about our regular cadre of trolls the other day. You looked as though you were being sucked into the vortex. But it appears you have ably identified them as well as their modi operandi.

And I liked I appreciated your imagery of our trolls sitting around the settee, pinky aloft, indulging in tea and crumpets yet griping like curmudgeons about how their world has disappeared. I even had a vision of Mule Rider arriving on his ass weilding a pink parasol.

Precious.

Best of luck in the 538 forum.

PS. Blogger makes me post my comments twice for some reason before the have been accepted.

Sam said...

Nate,
Thanks for the vote of confidence for Belichick. As a Pats fan, I felt watching the game that there was no way the Pats were gonna stop Peyton if he got the ball back. I'd always rather have a coach that tries to win than when who plays it safe. Your point about job security makes a lot of sense. Belichick can make gutsy calls because he knows he's never going to get fired.

Bart DePalma said...

Jeremy said...

@Bart What about all the times he succeeded? When you play the odds, you're playing the odds, and sometimes it will fail. I think basic math escapes you and I bet Nate would make a better play calling coach than 99% of the coaches out there.

The Pats are only 5 of 11 on 4th downs, which also happens to be the exact stat for the 1st downs surrendered by the Colts D to opponents on 4th down.

Less than a 50/50 shot with the downside of ceding 40 to 50 yards to Payton Manning.

Jacob said...

What really confuses me about the TX race is why a smart pragmatic conservative like Hutchinson is down against a sniveling blowhard like Perry. Especially when she has statewide name recognition, money, experience, popularity, etc and he won with 38% of the vote last time around.

Can any Texans here explain that?

Or does the teabag crowd believe that Hutchinson is a RINO because she only agrees with the right-wing agenda 99% of the time?

Pragmatus said...

What’s the possibility of Arlen Specter foregoing another run? That man does not look healthy. He looked especially deathly during the scream-a-thon town halls. His term is up in 2010. Are there any DSCC fallback plans in the wings in case he takes a pass on another term?

Pragmatus said...

Oxymoron of the Day = “decent Repub[lican]”, courtesy of brian.

:o) :o) :o)

Persuter said...

Bill Belichick is not dumb, provided that his goal is to help the New England Patriots win football games.

Yes he is. Going for it on fourth down and 2 in your own territory when you're ahead by 6 with two minutes to go and the opponent has only one timeout is a monumentally stupid call. Period.

The question isn't just whether or not they'd make it on fourth down. If the Colts have to go 70 yards instead of 30 in two minutes, they have to call completely different plays. Two out of the four plays on the final drive were runs, including the play that put them on the 1-yard line, and the drive took 1:47. If they have to go more than twice the distance in the same amount of time, runs up the middle are off the table, making it way easier to defend since you know the ball's going to Wayne.

Not to mention that by allowing the offense to go for it, Bill Belichick pretty much said, "Hey, defense, you SUCK." It was particularly bizarre given that the defense had stopped nine out of thirteen drives to that point and had two interceptions. This just seemed like Belichick bought into the ridiculous Brady hype.

Jacob said...

@Pragmatus

Specter is pushing 80 and recently overcame Hodgkins Lymphoma. Damn right he's not in good condition, but I doubt that deters him--he loves power too much. It's why he became a Democrat when the Republicans threatened him; it's why he became a Republican to run for DA in Philly in the first place; it's why he jumped on the Anita Hill-bashing bandwagon when they crucified him for opposing Bork. It's just his MO.

If he bows out though, I would assume the Democrats would just unite behind Joe Sestak, who is probably the better choice anyway.

filistro said...

Thanks, MR. U, for the words of wisdom... but never fear, I'm in no danger of being drawn into a troll vortex. (Great phrase, BTW :-)

Remember I'm the one who does anthropological field studies over at Happy Freeperville, at great personal risk both to my sanity and my respect for my fellow man.

But there are some of the righty regulars here whom I find interesting. For instance, I get a real kick out of that distant relative of the Polar Bear... the Bi-Polar Mule.

Hey... you live in the NE, don't you? Is it true there's a recount underway in NY-23 and Hoffman is thinking about "unconceding?"

The Freepers are gumming that over this morning. Apparently they heard Hoffman say it on the Glenn Beck radio show. I could probably find a tape to verify, but not even I am willing to carry research to those depths.

Jacob said...

Specter's deathly appearance could be a drawback vs. 2004 though. Imagine the opening attack ad voiceovers:

"There is a specter haunting Pennsylvania..."

Woody (Tokin Librul/Rogue Scholar/ Helluvafella!) said...

I have begun to think "independent voters" is becoming a euphemism for "white" voters who won't vote for Obama again...

Dwight said...

Jacob said...

What really confuses me about the TX race is why a smart pragmatic conservative like Hutchinson is down against a sniveling blowhard like Perry. Especially when she has statewide name recognition, money, experience, popularity, etc and he won with 38% of the vote last time around.


Keep in mind two things. She's going up against him in a primary (GOP primary was a cakewalk for him last time). And his 38% was in a field of 6 in general elections with a fairly ecclectic bunch.

Apparently being a [Texas] flagwaving blowhard does go a ways within the GOP in Texas. :) His infamous dabbling in succession rhetoric was internally politically prudent.

Pat said...

Looking forward to Nate's rebuttal of Tom's piece, although I tend to agree with Tom.

I do have a question though. What is the definition of "Running" for President. IE, if she forms an "Exploratory" committee, but "drops out" before the Iowa Caucuses... Has she really run?

Or what if someone else forms an exploratory committee for her?

Just curious on what the benchmark is....

Mr. Universe said...

Hey... you live in the NE, don't you?

Negative. West coast treehugger. Wouldn't surprise me if they're drooling for a recount. Nothing really surprises me about the right anymore.

Thanks for wading into the red state of mind. I'm certain I would cut my wrists after too much time over there. I think it's Kipling who said, "You're a braver man than I, Gunga Din" (apart from that man thing, of course).

--------------------------

Bill Belichick is not dumb, provided that his goal is to help the New England Patriots win football games.

Yes he is. Going for it on fourth down and 2 in your own territory when you're ahead by 6 with two minutes to go and the opponent has only one timeout is a monumentally stupid call. Period.


I don't care for NFL. College football is where the real action is. But when you risk something like that with anyone named Manning on the other side of that call, that's pretty dumb.

That's not playing odds as much as it is misreading them.

Bradford said...

How Palin could win the Repub nomination in 2012. Please God, make it so!

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/16/walter/

Mr. Universe said...

That having been said, two minutes is an eternity for Manning to have control of the field regardless of what yard line. He would have likely scored and won by a field goal anyway.

filistro said...

I'm confused about Nate and Tom's two-part bet. (This seems to be my day to be flummoxed by gaming issues.) If Palin doesn't run, Nate loses both the steak dinner and the cash wagered on the outcome of her potential candidacy?

If so, I can't believe Nate made such a misguided bet. It actually shakes my enormous confidence in him just a teeny bit.

EV: guanceo: the cave where Goldman Sachs executives hang upside down when they're not "working."

Jonathan said...

Nice work on Thrifty. I will not use them in the future.

It would be interestiing to do a study on how much the internet has evened the score between consumers and businesses. In the past, the cost of trying to obtain relief from less than honest business practices was too high for most consumers in most situations. How much has the threat of being called-out online changed the way businesses treat their customers.

A few years ago, a local furniture company failed to properly manufacture some furniture I had ordered. Initially, they wanted to charge me an extra $250 to redo the order. Then, I wrote a scathing detailed report of the situation on a review website to which their website was linked. About a month later, they called and offered to redo the order for no charge, if I removed the review. Of course, that was after the review had probably cost them a few customers.

Anyway, nice work depriving Thrifty of business for their shenanigans.

jslater said...

Long time Lions fan here (pity ME). I've been convinced that Bill B.'s choice last night was at least arguably not insane. But Marty M's decision to kick off in OT? Completely nuts.

David said...

I've also had bad experiences with Thrifty and will NEVER use them again. They tempt you with a cheap quote, then find ways to gouge you later.

Shap said...

I'm gonna have to agree with jslater. I really don't think there's any way to demonstrate that Mornhinnweig's decision to take the wind instead of the ball was 'statistically correct'. It was just a terrible decision, made by a terrible coach, who deserved to be fired.

Bart DePalma said...

Nothing but Palin 24/7 on the left and right through the weekend, complete with AP "fact checking" hit teams, NYT's resident RINO Brooks saying he doesn't take Sarah seriously, hundreds of posts after Ann Althouse called her stupid, leading up to the Oprah this afternoon and Babah Wahwah tomorrow.

You can smell the utter terror on the left. I have not seen this kind of reaction from libs since Reagan. Why would anyone who draws this kind of attention possibly believe that she could run for President?

I believe Nate will have the edge in his wager.

Mr. Universe said...

Tomorrow's the big day!

Sarah Palin's book, you ask? Heck no, Star Trek is available on DVD.

In all seriousness I'm wondering if Nate will read the book and comment. This is Palin's big week. Interesting article Bradford found.

I am not old enough to remember the train wreck that Goldwater caused. My earliest political memory was McGovern and George C. Wallace (mostly because I grew up in Alabama). I actually liked McGovern.

Palin appears to be poised to fulfill that roll once again. Will her tidal wave of popularity and beauty pageant/hockey mom routine force the Republicans to nominate her? Or will this Tea Party thing take off as a third party in time for 2012?

Wonder if I can vote for her in the primary?

This is gonna be so much fun to watch a slow motion train wreck.

Jim said...

OMG, never buy that rental insurance. Such a cash cow for the car rental industry. If you have good car insurance already, most of it will be covered by your own policy. Watch the fine print on the "missed days of usage" should your car rental be damaged badly. That can add up.

Jacob said...

Blogger Bart DePalma said...

"You can smell the utter terror on the left."


Once again you mistake your own disturbing Palin fantasies for terror on our part. I mean if bats**t crazy scares "the left" (which by your definition seems to include the center, the center-right, and the non-teabagging far-right), why not just go full tilt and nominate Beck or Rush?

I mean if we're shaking in our boots at the prospect of the Quitter and her teabag handlers, wouldn't a bloated drug-addled neo-fascist loudmouth scare us even more?

Tony C. said...

@Fillstro:

Presuming your handle held out; yes, you would only be up $20 instead of $10.

However, you need to look at how many $1 bets you can handle versus how many $2 bets. It is possible your longest losing streak might have bankrupted you, had you been betting $2 instead of $1.

As a rule of thumb, I try to keep my bets at about 2% of my stake; that lets you be up to 50 bets down, while still making your wins worth something.

Inkan1969 said...

Bart, what terror anyone might be feeling about Sarah Palin is the terror any decent human being would feel at the horrific presidency that she would inflict upon the United States and the world. In another thread you accused Dems of trying to cast conservatives as stupid or evil. I think your post shows you to be demonstratably stupid and evil. In the face of her lack of information, her vindictiveness, and her willingness to embrace demogoguic tactics like spreading "death panel" lies, you STILL support her? You keep perpetrating the lie that Obama supporters form a cult around him. Bart DePalma's posts read very much like the propaganda of a personality cult. The parallels behind the personality cult empowering Sarah and Rush and Glen to the cult that empowered Adolf and Hermann and Josef, that is the terror that all humanity must fight.

John said...

Let me just clue people in on a few minor formalities, regardless of whether Belichick was dumb or not. 1). The guy has 5 Super Bowl Rings, guess what, his instinct should be trusted well above conventional wisdom in all football related matters. 2). He had the perfect play call, either Faulk just didn't get it down, or the ref missed the spot, either way, the play istself was successful. 3). This game was monumental? really? it's a mid season playoff game between 2 teams that will be in the playoffs. The pats would have to go sub .500 hundred the rest of the way to miss them (not like last years 11-5 not getting in, 11-5 this year is an assured division title). 4). I'm not sure why people assume his call says he has no confidence in his D, What other sport would you not want to give your best player the ball to ice a game?

John said...

Bart actually posted the first factual thing in his history here. i am utterly terrified of Palin. The thought of her in a position of power makes me sick to my stomach. The fact that there are people out there who follow her as more than a joke is scary stuff. The fact that she could get within striking distance of having her finger on the nuclear button is horrifying. I don't know a single person not a zealot who actually could stand that thought. But then again, that's because we don't believe GWB was trying to corrupt America's soul when he ordered the redesign of the American nickel (of course, she was trying to pin it on Obama in an utter show of unity that epically failed, becasue people with a brain know redesigns of American money don't happen and get circulated in 9 months). Don't worry, bart, you frighten me too, I'm always fearful of those without a grip on reality, those are people who tend to snap hardest and harm innocents like myself. All I can do is suggest meds;)

bjb1968 said...

“…believe that Hutchinson is a RINO because she only agrees with the right-wing agenda 99% of the time?”

While Hutchinson is arguably a fiscal conservative she is a social liberal.

brian said...

I doubt Palin runs for Prez. The liberal media essentially killed her political career, but created her book selling/pundit career. I think she realizes it, and is more than happy to make millions off conservatives loving her because she's public enemy #1 for the liberal media. If I was her, I'd get into talk radio next. Big bucks.

I'm not her biggest conservative fan, but I do find myself now reading her Facebook daily to get her thoughts. Very common sense and approachable.

Chris said...

One of the things the paper Nate references explicitly states is that only first-quarter situations are evaluated because of complications in the modeling that arise in end-of-the-half and end-of-the-game situations. Specifically, going for it on 4th down when you have a lead less than 8 pts with there being enough time on the clock for the other team to score (but likely not enough time for TWO series of scoring possessions) on your own 28 is a bad decision. In that case, your objective is not to score more points, given the time and situation; your objective is to prevent the other team from scoring points.

The other thing that paper does not take into account is the team you're facing, which is particularly relevant in this case. Even if on average, going for it in that situation yields a win, the probabilities shift when you're against a specific team. Specifically, the probability of winning if you don't make that conversion is significantly lower for a game against the Colts than, say, the Buccaneers.

While I agree on average NFL teams don't go for it enough on 4th down, I really don't think a good probabilistic breakdown of the situation would tell you to go for it.

Walker said...

As a Texan and a Republican I can tell you what the lay of the land is here regarding Perry and Hutchinson. I have the inside skinny, so to speak.

KBH has long wanted the governorship. She
wanted to run in 2006 but stepped aside when Perry informally swore that if he won that it would be his last term. Well, he ultimately won unimpressively in 2006 in a nasty 3-way race with Democrat
Chris Bell (an epic d#%$@-bag in the same vein as John Edwards, btw, who now advertises his ambulance chasing law practice in the alternative weekly here in Houston) and independent gadfly Kinky Friedman. Perry was maligned for his poor showing and now wants to redeem himself, so to speak.

When looking at how local state-wide economies have faired recently Texas is holding up strong, relatively. Perry wants to claim this as his legacy, a strong, small-gov’t, low-tax success story.
He also wants to run as the anti-DC candidate in the primary. Hutchinson is getting nervous and should be. Most Republicans who vote in the primary down here are uber-redwing, probably the most
rightwing in the nation. Perry can run on 1) success, and 2) anti-DC sentiments.

This will be hard for KBH to overcome. She needs to stay in the Senate. Mayor White is a good, solid, middle-of-the-road, business friendly Democrat. She will need to hustle a bit to beat him if he’s on his A Game.

Dwight said...

She needs to stay in the Senate. Mayor White is a good, solid, middle-of-the-road, business friendly Democrat.

Plus it'll be pretty damn tough to stick the "tax-and-spend" scare label on him.

Juris said...

Miscellany:

* Thrifty Car Rental? Stay away. I also "remember the Alamo" and stay away from them. I've had good experience with National. Basic lesson: hide the portable GPS and all traces of it when you leave your car. It's a ready target otherwise. If you rent a lot, buy your own GPS and carry it with you in your briefcase.

* Nate's ESPN SPI did very well over the weekend. I think it will draw increasing attention. I've got a friend who's trying to get ESPN Brasil to put it on their site. I hope that's in the cards. Brasil is a big country, and besides Portugal is also a contender.

* Never leave anything valuable overnight in a rental car.

Inkan1969 said...

I looked up Chris Bell and found no indication that he had cheated on his wife, fathered any illegitimate children or tried to hide any such acts from his supporters. So why would anyone call him a d-----bag?

Delorian said...

So if KBH does not win the Republican primary (I'd say Perry is the favorite as of now), then she will not resign from the Senate and will serve out her remaining term until 2012, is that correct? I haven't seen this confirmed, but this is the impression I get reading between the lines. So in that scenario, Bill White has just spent a ton of advertising $$ for a 2010 Senate race that won't happen?

Jacob said...

Blogger Inkan1969 said...

"I looked up Chris Bell and found no indication that he had cheated on his wife, fathered any illegitimate children or tried to hide any such acts from his supporters. So why would anyone call him a d-----bag?"


He means that Bell--like Edwards--is a plaintiff's lawyer, hence the "ambulance-chasing" BS.

See, Walker seems to be a believer in enacting stronger corporate murder protection, and thus counts any advocate of patients and poor victims as a threat to the right of large corporations to grievously injure people and of insurance companies to deny coverage. Thus anyone who makes a living opposing them is a d-bag in his mind.

Jacob said...

@Delorian

Probably true, though White will almost certainly run for statewide office someday, be it Senate or Governor, and it may help to start boosting his name recognition and moderate credentials in advance.

Walker said...

Chris Bell is like John Edwards, not so much regarding “extra-curricular” scandals, but in that he’s also a trial attorney who emits unceasing, suffocating waves of insipid, cloying, transparent insincerity. Chris Bell is the kind of politician that partisan true-believer Democrats somehow think hangs the moon but that Republicans see as a opportunist cretinous gas-bag. The same is true on the other foot too. You probably think the same about Giuliani, Gingrich, etc.

TBender said...

No one should believe what KBH says she will do until she actually does it. White is being very smart in keeping himself visible, whether it be 2010 or 2012.


And the race in 2006 was 4-headed. Strayhorn (Republican running as an Indy) finished 3rd, well ahead of Friedman.

jrubinstein said...

Nate, if Thrifty won't refund the money for the GPS, when your credit card bill comes, don't pay the amount Thrifty charged you for the GPS, and include a brief note explaining why. I have challenged credit card amounts, once as low as $2.00 off a charge of over $50 because the motel failed to provide the promised bagel breakfast, up to hundreds of dollars for greater fraud, and the credit card company has ruled in my favor 100% of the time.

Just John said...

Jrubinstein makes the best point of all with the credit card nonpayment strategery.
And to be undeservedly fair to Thrifty, I had a similar experience with a different company. They're probably just trying to keep up with the market.

Only in the Republic of Teapartia would a fact-checking mission be termed a "hit squad." Nice one, Bartholomew. Got a good chuckle out of that one.

slasher14 said...

Supporters of Palin line up against Belichick -- hey, since when do you have to KNOW anything in order to make decisions?

For those who think you should actually have information before deciding, check out this site: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2009/11/belichicks-4th-down-decision-vs-colts.html, which shows that although it's not a slam dunk, the odds favor going for it in that situation.

What stuns me is that Bill Belicheck is arguably the best pro football coach of the past ten years (with the rings to prove it) and there are jerks out there who DON'T know the odds in that situation and assume that he doesn't either.

Pragmatus said...

Here is the gold standard of gasbag—Kevin James, batshit nutjob rightwing Radio commentator.

Jacob said...

Walker said...

"Chris Bell is like John Edwards...Chris Bell is the kind of politician that partisan true-believer Democrats somehow think hangs the moon but that Republicans see as a opportunist cretinous gas-bag."


Interesting. As a progressive Democrat, I never really understood the attraction of John Edwards either, though I know several people who volunteered on his campaign. His positions on most issues were great and perhaps there was some courage in his advocacy on poverty issues that no one wants to touch, but he seemed unable to sell his message--he failed to understand how his personal life contributed to the sincerity of the message, hence buying gigantic mansions, expensive haircuts, and other rookie mistakes.

And despite his great progressive message in his Presidential campaigns, his Senate career was both moderate and undistinguished--hardly a model for the causes he championed. Edwards also seemed to lack both the intellectual acuity and political gravitas that Democrats need in a standard-bearer. Or maybe that's just the "liberal intellectual elite" perception.

I'm not a Texan so I don't know a whole lot about Bell, but he seems to have been pretty sincere and effective during his time in Congress and the Houston City Council as well as in his advocacy work.

Is he like Edwards in some of the above ways, or do you make that association just because both are trial lawyers?

Janet said...

I wrote to Thrifty. Likely they are not shaking in their boots, but any companies' adjustments to consumers' increased power with more transparent and humane practices benefits us all.

Eli said...

I agree with the Belichick call to go for it on 4th--Nate linked to the statistics, it's the right call. What WAS stupid was the play call right before. 3rd and 2, about 2:15 left, and the Pats tried to pass; Brady is hit as he throws and the pass is incomplete. If instead they run the ball, they probably get the first, or at least make it much easier to go for it on 4th down; at worst, they lose a few yards, much less than a sack. More importantly, they either run the clock all the way to 2:00 or make the Colts use their last timeout. Going for it on 4th was the right call; passing on 3rd was not.

Philip said...

Palin's words on Oprah today seem to imply that she doesn't plan on running, although I never trust what any politician says 3 years out from the actual election. Personally, I'd still say, knowing her inability to understand the world around her, that she plans on running.

Delorian said...

Regarding the very first comment by Tony C, Houston has two year terms for mayor, term limited to 3 terms (6 years). The effect of this is that, once a new mayor is elected, most serious opponents simply wait until the incumbent is term limited before running again. Since term limits were enacted, we've had three straight three term (6 year) mayors. Point being, White's last two victories with 90% of the vote aren't really all that significant. I still think he has done a good job as mayor of our city, and I can see how he might be the kind of Democrat that might be competitive for Senate in 2010 (or 2012).

J. Forestier said...

That's simple, with the custom GPS software, they track the car and then break into it to steal the GPS.

shiloh said...

brian said...

There has gotta be some Dem retirement announcements coming soon.
~~~~~~~~~~


No, only Reps have bailed so far: Voinovich, Gregg, Martinez, Bond, Brownback, Bunning. If Dems were not running, they would have already said so.

And Belichick is a very, very good coach, but he was no genius in Cleveland. In fact, he was such a good coach there, Modell moved his team to Baltimore ;) ok many other factors went into that decision.

And Belichick had the good fortune ;) of Bledsoe getting injured and Brady taking over and a very fortunate call against Oakland in the playoffs.

but, luck favors the well prepared ...

Rooted for New England in the 9/11 Super Bowl, but was very happy genius Belichick failed last night and the Giants ruined Belichick's perfect season.

btw, perhaps those Rep senators bailed too soon.

Delorian said...

'No, only Reps have bailed so far: Voinovich, Gregg, Martinez, Bond, Brownback, Bunning.'

Actually, Brownback is simply fulfilling his original 1998 pre-election pledge that, if elected, he would serve no more than two Senate terms. If only more politicians kept their campaign promises.

shiloh said...

Delorian said...

Actually, Brownback is simply fulfilling his original 1998 pre-election pledge that, if elected, he would serve no more than two Senate terms. If only more politicians kept their campaign promises.
~~~~~~~~~~


An honest politician and a Rep no less, thanx for the correction.

Carlos Curtis said...

re: Rental Insurance

What most people are referring to when talking about rental car insurance is a Damage Waiver. The only "insurance" rental car companies are selling is Liability Insurance which you should only purchase if you don't have...which is illegal to drive without. Legally, the Damage Waiver must be sold separately from any liability insurance (Your rental contract will typically have 2-3 places to initial to accept/decline coverage).

Essentially, the Damage Waiver does just what it says, it waives any damage to the car that is incurred during the rental. If you purchase the waiver, and the car is damaged, the rental company will basically turn a blind eye and say "fuhgetaboutit." Insurance never comes into play. It is simply a contract between the company and the renter.

In most cases (like 99.9%), your own personal insurance policy will cover the car in the event of damage when no Damage Waiver is purchased. However, any damage that the rental company deems as needing repair (which is spelled our explicitly in the rental agreement) will incur a claim being filed against your insurance policy. This means that if somebody runs a shopping cart into your rental at a supermarket, you run the risk of having to pay a deductable, and possible subsequent premium increases, even if you wouldn't file a claim due to similar damage on your own personal vehicle.

As far as the credit card "insurance" is concerned, the card company will only pay the deductable on your personal car insurance policy for you, and will not eliminate the rental car company from filing an insurance claim against your personal policy.

So, basically, don't buy any insurance from a rental car place, but the damage waiver can save you a giant pain in the ass.

filistro said...

Thanks, Tony.

I know you're right... it's just so hard to accept. It's another form of Gambler's Fallacy, I guess... the concept that if you'd been betting bigger, your pile of winnings would have been a LOT bigger.

Juris said...

Correct, Carlos. Buy Damage Loss Waiver to insure rental car. If you don't have your own liability insurance, you may want that.

If Nate had his own GPS, and also had homeowners/renters insurance, there's a good chance the homeowners insurance would cover the GPS theft.

I meantime, he may not even be able to claim a "theft loss" on his taxes since he didn't own it.

filistro said...

I wonder if Bart DP is a Freeper?

Freepers truly believe, to the very bottom of their wrinkly little black hearts, that Dems ridicule Sarah Palin because they "fear" her.

It never seems to occur to them that according to their own line of reason, they must have been terrified of Al Gore.

But then it is my observation that virtually all Freepers suffer from an irony deficiency.

Dipsy Doo said...

It's interesting to see the comments attacking the 4th down call. They almost universally appeal to "social norms" of football ("you just *don't* go for it there") rather than attempting probabilities.

From watching the game, I would've given a casual estimate of ~50% chance that the Pats make the first down (and hence win the game), some low probability that they stop the Colts if the play failed, and >50% chance that, if they kick it away, Peyton finds the end zone. That rough estimate tells me that you win most of the time if you go for it, and you lose most of the time if you kick, so you should go for it if you want to win.

Would anyone like to present a different set of odds that argues in favor of kicking? I don't find the appeal to conventional wisdom very compelling.

Also, Nate, enjoyed spotting you on ESPN!

Pan said...

Carlos:

Of course, for those of us with liability only, our credit card insurance becomes the primary (at least for any claim by the rental company for their car's damage).

BTW, this is a pretty interesting thread about these issues, including the nefarious "Loss of Use" charge.

As far as the question about Nate's homeowner's/renter's insurance paying for a stolen GPS - the devil's in the deductible. If you have stuff stolen like that, you'll probably still be paying for it out of pocket.

Ted Gellar-Goad said...

Don't count Cal Cunningham out yet!

Tom Jensen at PPP thinks that Cal dropped out because he didn't have the support of the DSCC, and Chris Cillizza suggested that Cal would get back in the race if the DSCC couldn't convince Etheridge to run (see here, item #4). And Etheridge isn't running.

michael said...

@Jacob
"Once again you mistake your own disturbing Palin fantasies for terror on our part. I mean if bats**t crazy scares "the left" (which by your definition seems to include the center, the center-right, and the non-teabagging far-right), why not just go full tilt and nominate Beck or Rush?"

Or Hitler for that matter. Yeah, I said it;=}

michael said...

By the way, as nervous nellie Nate natters negatively about the Dems, he may want to pay attention to the latest polling out of Maryland, which shows Biden now 5 points up on Castle, from 21 down, three months ago. As many wise heads have observed, it is ludicrous fantasizing or catastrophizing to predict elections 1 year out (remember presidents Dukakis, Kerry and Hillary?), but that does not stop our boy, Nate. Since we are playing that silly game, may as well bring in a poll that shows most of Castle's deteriorating support came from his negative vote on health care.

I think many on the right are going to vote for clubfooters for growth or other variants of Ron Paulism, whether as the GOP candidate or a spoiler third party run. That cannot bode well for a party that cannot get above 10-20% in favorability...

As for Palin, rather than being terrified, I think most on our side of the aisle are praying (or the secular equivalent) the withc from wassila runs. It will be a bigger blowout than Goldwater if she does, or the GOP will split in two...

EmonOkari said...

On Palin: one of her first stops is in Rochester, NY, which is near where I live. Who thinks I should try to get an autograph?;)

ABSOLUTELY!!! Then put it up on Ebay. The freepers are paying top coin.

Jacob said...

Blogger michael said...

"Or Hitler for that matter. Yeah, I said it;=}"


But remember in Limbaugh fantasy land Hitler was a liberal! But considering that the right lives in a world of make-believe anyway, maybe they can run Lex Luther or Mr. Burns; their supporters are clammering for a COMPLETE break with reality after all.

Just John said...

Mr. Burns is indeed eligible to run, having spent eight years this decade as "merely" Vice President.

filistro- "irony deficiency" = gorgeous.

Dwight said...

On Palin: one of her first stops is in Rochester, NY, which is near where I live. Who thinks I should try to get an autograph?;)

Try to get it signed on an "ERA-YES" button. :)

brian said...

Hitler was a liberal. Jonah Goldberg wrote a bestseller--Liberal Fascism---last year. Basically discussed how fascism was liberalism with a nationalistic flair. I'm thinking Hitler would've preferred Keynes over Hayek/Milton Friedman. And I believe Hitler loved to confiscate guns too.

snowflame said...

Brian: The less said about Liberal Fascism the better. It's a terrible, terrible book.

The short version of something non-controversial so as not to sidetrack the discussion to Godwin: It is *historical fact* that the right in Germany supported Hitler, while he and the left (socialists, etc.) mutually despised each other. This is indisputable. And it's also ludicrous to argue that even the German "right" was liberal, too - Germany was considered a rather conservative country compared to England or France. Goldberg and you are free to argue that Hitler was a "liberal" by some definition anyway, but liberals weren't the ones who voted him in.

Jacob said...

Brian said...

"I have no f'ing idea what liberalism is but I'm gonna go ahead and try to trash it anyway." (paraphrased)


No dear troll, Hitler was not a liberal, in spite of the wishes of Jonah Goldberg.

Liberalism requires a free and open society with a democratic government.

Liberalism entails respect for all cultures, religious traditions, and creeds.

Liberalism invites the freedom to speak, to think, and to believe as one wishes without fear of interference from government or big business.

Liberalism demands the equality of all people under the law.

Liberalism celebrates the rights of the individual to privacy, to expression, to justice, and to a chance for success.

Liberalism creates free markets where the consumer and laborer are both protected from the avarice of oligarchs.

Liberalism seeks to avoid war when possible and promotes peace between nations.

Liberalism abhors the clamoring trumpets of petty nationalism.

Liberalism rejects the onslaught of anarcho-capitalist robber barons, of fascist despots, of militant demagogues, and of hateful religious extremists.

Liberalism stands for the right to education, health care, financial security in hard times, and secure retirement, so that everyone may seek out their dreams.

Liberalism is grounded in the right of all to have life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without fear of persecution.


Fascists believe in none of these goals, and maybe Goldberg should worry about the eerie similarities of neoconservatism and corporatism before tying fascism to an ideology that is its polar opposite in terms of values.

DCM in FL said...

JURIS

actually, National & Alamo are both owned by the same parent company now {Vanguard].

in many locations [including LAX] they even operate out of the same offices.

otoh, I had a great rental experience in Seattle with Thrifty fwiw.

a brand new Ford Escape [with only 16 miles on it] + sunroof & satellite radio & all the bells & whistles for a song as an upgrade from a compact reservation. Of course I declined rental coverage since my AMEX & own car insurance covers virtually everything - and I passed on the GPS since I brought my own $99 refurbished unit from Amazon that I brought along.

Drove it into Canada & ferried out to Victoria then ferried south down the Olympic penninsula then another ferry return into downtown Seattle in a week with family. btw - the ferry charges for a vehicle were exceptionally reasonable [and even FREE back into Seattle]

BUT the first thing I did [and Nate probably forgot to do it appears] was to remove all stickers on the vehicle indicating it was a rental car.

Thieves around the world target vehicles that are IDed as rentals. I have had breakins on the Riviera in So France & elsewhere so now I always remove anything that indicates it is a rental.

my Thrifty vehicle had 2 stickers on the body with coded scan bars [for checking the vehicle in & out of inventory].

one was the the bumper, one of the windshield. easy to peel off once I left the lot. BUT every thief knows that those stickers = rental vehicle for easy pickins...

my policy is to NEVER rent any accessories as those are the easiest to steal/lose & cost the most to replace [ski racks, baby seats, GPS, etc.]

another tip - it is often if not usually much better to reserve your rental at an off-airport location such as Hertz local edition or Enterprise.

better rates & service & upgrades imho - plus none of the excessive airport fees tacked on. In late Sept while in LA I rented a nice compact car from Hertz that I picked up at the Renaissance Hollywood Hotel @ the Hollywood and Highland complex.

great service and the rate with taxes for an entire week was only $135 for a nice Kia Rondo. [but again I brought my own GPS]

often can be cheaper to take ground transport into town & arrange pickup or have delivered to you a rental car from a local edition instead

DCM in FL said...

oh and Nate - never ever leave a GPS in a vehicle !!!

they are the #1 target for thieves since they are small + easy to sell for cash.

in the glove box doesn't help either especially if the charging cord or mount are visible.

I coulda 'predicted' with a high degree of confidence that your rental vehicle would get broken into [sorry, but true]

a GPS is as easy to carry as an iPhone or any electronic accesory - and very useful around town on foot too

shiloh said...

Jacob said...

Brian said...

"I have no f'ing idea what liberalism is but I'm gonna go ahead and try to trash it anyway." (paraphrased)


No dear troll, Hitler was not a liberal, in spite of the wishes of Jonah Goldberg.

Liberalism requires a free and open society with a democratic government.

liberalism ...
~~~~~~~~~~


So if one is going to be wrong on a particular political topic, it's always good to be 100% wrong like Brian!

And there have been many books written since the beginning of civilization, some fact and some fiction like Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. btw, palin's current piece of fiction, Going Rogue is also a best seller, or so I hear ...

brian said...

Jacob-

Nice fluffy rhetoric. You should write Obama's speeches. Too bad for you, I'm not a typical drooler like the Obamabots.

Given the liberalism I've seen utterly rejects economic freedom, and isnt especially strong on civil liberty either(see fairness doctrine, "hate" speech, tea partiers are "un American")--you may want to reconsider your party affiliation

Juris said...

@DCM in FLA: Yes, I know that Alamo is tied to National, and I've used both car rental companies out of LAX and elsewhere. But my experience with National remains superior to that with Alamo (or Enterprise, which is also linked to them). I far prefer National's service (Executive Preferred at the present time, formerly their Emerald Aisle). I will never use Alamo again. It's like Jekyll and Hyde.

(Besides, my employer has a "deal" with National and I get excellent rates that include unlimited mileage and DLW.)

slasher14 said...

Brian -- you cite three examples of liberal anti-civil liberties.

1. Fairness doctrine: simply states that if a broadcast media outlet allows one partisan side to express its views, they must give equal time to the opposition. This was basically a way to keep the rich from dominating political discourse, which you, as a whore for the rich (whether you know it or not), disagree with. Well, to each his own. However, the fairness doctrine did not, in any way at all, PREVENT anyone from speaking their minds. It simply tried to prevent one side from dominating the conversation based upon their money.

2. "Hate speech" is defined in law as "fighting words," which means speech which is deliberately designed to inflame and provoke others to violence. It has been outlawed under governments of the left, right, and center since this country was founded -- as a simple matter of keeping the peace. Over the years, to be sure, the definition of what constitutes hate speech has evolved. In the 1800s, cursing the Irish was viewed as perfectly OK in most circles, for example. In the 1910s, it was Italians and Jews. Today, the cloak of protection against being subjected to provocative vituperation has been extended to black people, which is about the time that conservatives began to complain about it. Wonder why?

3. Calling teabaggers "un-American" is either true or it isn't, but that it falls under the rubric of protected political speech is as beyond dispute as were the left's denunciations of Bush and Cheney as war-mongerers. No liberal that I has called for the teabag demonstrations to be stopped, and you know this as well as I do. We're simply giving them a taste of the medicine the right has given as for decades, and here you are, bleating that this makes us fascists. Take it like a man, for Christ's sake.

On the other hand, under every regime generally described under the term of fascism the following are true: secret police arresting citizens for expressing political views; denial of the right of assembly to dissidents; censorship of the media; police enabling armed gangs of thugs in beating dissidents and disfavored groups; breaking up of unions; jailing of opposition politicans.

NONE of these things can be laid at the door of liberals, as you and Goldberg are well aware. Your reasons for offering pathetic excuses for tagging liberalism as fascism are a smokescreen to try to distract attention from the fact that fascism has ALWAYS come to power with the approval, tacit or otherwise, of CONSERVATIVES. It was conservatives who joined in coalition with Hitler to bring him to power and it was liberals (and those farther to the left) who opposed it. Same in Spain; same in Italy; same in Argentina.

But, of course, no conservative wants to admit that he/she enabled some of the most repressive regimes in the history of the planet, so you guys hide behind "oh, dear, liberals are being fascists because they get mad if a neo-Nazi goes up to Harlem and gives a speech about killing all the blacks."

You guys are beyond pathetic.

DCM in FL said...

JURIS

true dat, Enterprise did acquire Vanguard [Alamo + National] a couple years back

and Avis + Budget are owned jointly

likewise Dollar + Thrifty [nate's fav]

now Hertz has acquired Advantage

not much real competition left in the rental car biz with all the consolidation

DCM in FL said...

ok, now in the MNF game tonight between BAL & CLE there was a situation where BAL 'should' have gone for it on 4th down - but they punted instead

in a scoreless first half against the punchless Browns, the Ravens had possession on the CLE 39, 4th & 9 with about 60 seconds left in the half.

WHY did they choose to punt in this situation ? it was scoreless fer crissakes, the opponent was the Browns who could not move the ball, and the Ravens defense was strong

now THAT was an obvious situation made to go for the 1st down to try to score - who cares IF you fail at that point.

but I do not agree with the PATs on Sunday [neither did Tedy Brushci who should know]

the stats do not justify it from the field position

same thing happened to USC when they went for it on 4th down & lost the national championship to TX as a result of yielding field position - but IIRC they were at least closer to mid-field

Jacob said...

@brian

And yet...no liberal has proposed outlawing hateful speech. Not sure what you're getting at there. I mean fascists have outlawed anti-government speech. Bushies have tried to detain those who speak out against the government. But no liberals have done so...strange.

And your notion that the conglomerates controlling the publicly owned airwaves should be permitted to advance only the far right agenda seems to fall flat too, as slasher14 observed.

The teabaggers' MO is to shout from uncensored television and radio news that they have no right to free speech, to wave their assault weapons in the air with no repercussions and shout that they have no right to bear arms. Not exactly a consistent ideology--you might want to consider re-affiliating with some other group.

As for me, I'm fine being a freedom-loving liberal whether the government is liberal, conservative, or centrist (though I haven't lived under a liberal government in my lifetime; sure would be nice).

Republicans who want to proclaim the virtues of corporatism when in power and anarchism when they're out are free to do so. I'll stick with a more consistent ideology, thanks.

brian said...

Re: the fairness doctrine--All I know is Reagan repealed it in 87, and within 2 years, conservative talk began dominating AM radio.

In general terms, liberal ideology appears to value the group (ie state) over the individual. I think that was Goldberg's point. This often leads to tyrannical rule, like Hitler/Stalin. Individual rights are slowly taken away for "the greater good". Its clear, most liberals are economic fascists--more and more I see fascism in civil areas (attacking Fox, guns, smoking, eating bad foods, un PC speech).

Peter Wolf said...

@brian

Its clear, most liberals are economic fascists

I'm confused. You then talk about social issues, not economic. Your examples make no sense....

Walker said...

You scratch the skin of a liberal and just below you see the scaly skin of a Junior Mint tyrant. V like, me friends.

Liberals often think of themselves as one of the elites, a member of The Enlightened Class, one who knows what's best for the country and the world.

They are so very sure in their convictions, only slightly (and conveniently) adjusting them when facts and public opinions turn against them, but always the end result is the same - a soft, statist paternalism that gradually erodes personal freedoms.

An example of this is global warming...er, I mean, "climate change".

I mean, haven't you guys heard? Saint Gore declare long ago that "the debate is over" regarding global warming...er, I mean "climate change"?

We just need to shut up, we stupid, white hicks and let Gore and his smart energy businesses make mint off of "climate change".

We are all so lucky to have Saint Gore looking out for us.

Speaking of global warming...er, I mean "climate change", we need to calculate our individual temperature readings for THE GREAT NATE SILVER GLOBAL WARMING CHALLENGE OF 2009! DO you think that there was ANY reading in the US that he won??

Tony C. said...

@Brian:

liberal ideology appears to value the group (ie state) over the individual.

WTF is this? I am a liberal and feel exactly the opposite; it is the dumb fuck conservatives that think the group is more important. That is why they claim to value church and community and marriage so highly (they claim, they do not practice), that is why they are homophobic and xenophobic and racist, that is why they want to enforce the uniformity of their narrow biblical mindset by law no matter how unhappy it makes people that do not conform.

It is conservatives that want to maximize their selfish concerns by eliminating government completely; the only sense in which this values "individuals" is the 100% selfish case. Conservatives don't value "individuals," they value only themselves and say fuck everybody else.

And it is conservatives that want to control everybody else; they are the fascists that want to get their religion enforced by law; they are the ones that want to eliminate free speech and control what is allowed to be taught in the science class. Talk about controlling "un PC speech," look at the tens of millions Conservatives have spent trying to stop the teaching of proven science they don't like!

Wait, isn't it Conservatives that want to control whether people use recreational drugs, or engage in prostitution, or watch pornography, or dabble in witchcraft? Isn't it Conservatives that want to control what is shown on TV, or what words are used on TV or the radio, or what is allowed to be printed in the newspaper? Isn't it Conservatives that want to ban the teaching of birth control to teens, even though it has been proven by multiple studies that teaching abstinence-only increases the rate of teen pregnancy? Isn't it conservatives that demand control over the bodies of pregnant women in the form of banning all abortions?

For Liberals, it is precisely because we value individuals that we advocate our policies; it isn't fascism or control that we seek, it is minimizing collective suffering and maximizing collective gain.

The mantra of the Conservatives is "fuck you, I've got mine and I'll shoot anybody that tries to take it." Conservatives are the most self-centered, selfish, money-grubbing uncaring humans imaginable. It's always them first, nobody second.

As a liberal, I do not believe in communism or tyrranical rule, I do not believe in suppressing free speech, and I don't care what foods you want to eat or drugs you want to take. What I do care about is fairness on the other side of the transaction; I see no need for me or anybody else to exploit others to make a profit. I believe in capitalism and have no problem with people earning millions or billions and living La Vida Loca. I just demand they do it without lying, cheating, stealing or harming others in the process, and there is plenty of proof that can be done. There is also plenty of proof that for some products that apparently cannot be done; and for those products (like health insurance) we need to remove the profit motives that drive the criminal behavior.

We are not "economic fascists," we just think many corporations border on criminality, or cross that border and regularly engage in criminal fraud and corruption and lie to people for profit. It is our focus on their victims, instead of the conservative focus on the profiteers, that makes us liberals and conservatives assholes.

Dwight said...

Thanks for that David Icke moment, Walker!

P.S. You want to see totalitarian? You don't need to look any further than your own backyard. :)

brian said...

Walker-

Yep, the enviro movement is good example. "The debate is over", we're told. Al Gore (cause we know he is a science genius) has decided. If you dare to question it, you're an anti-science hick. And since most things you do affect the environment--regulating the environment means regulating you. So quit questioning and comply for "the greater good".

I said "its clear" to say its not even worth discussing. But I can review every economic policy over the last 11 months if you like to prove to you liberals are economic fascists.

Robert said...

"The debate is over", we're told.

Unless someone has something new to say about it.

Al Gore (cause we know he is a science genius) has decided.

Al Gore has no more "decided" the issue for us than Ralph Nader "decided" that seat belts save lives.

If you dare to question it, you're an anti-science hick.

No, questioning science is good. Questioning science without a credible scientific argument based in fact might make you "anti-science".

And since most things you do affect the environment--regulating the environment means regulating you. So quit questioning and comply for "the greater good".

Basically. But if you think that's fascism, then you don't know what fascism is. But then again, you've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue what liberalism is either. Maybe you just need to spend some quality time with a dictionary and some history books before you get around to questioning something as modern as the scientific debate on climate change.

Tony C. said...

And since most things you do affect the environment--regulating the environment means regulating you.

Another self-centered idiotic argument; regulating people is what EVERY law does, how do you propose we tell the environment what to do? By this argument, all laws should be destroyed, because you set up regulating people as if it is some bad thing.

The point isn't to regulate the environment you fool, the point is to keep people from destroying or exploiting a limited resource that belongs to all humans for their own personal gain, and once again, this is liberal because we care about other people and don't think you or your selfish cult have the right to screw up our water, air, oceans, animals or our health or our kids just because it makes you a buck.

Of course regulations will apply to people. So what? Are you trying to make an argument for anarchy and no laws whatsoever, just survival of the fittest and rule by the baddest mofo in the county? Having consulted for a state prison system, I know that guy wouldn't be me, and I would bet dollars to donuts that guy ain't you either.

Laws aren't inherently bad, and they always apply to the behavior of people. We don't need your breathless observation of this simple fact. What are you, in sixth grade?

psycholosopher said...

Nate, I'm surprised to see that you did not use any statistics to back up your bashing of Thrifty car rental. I agree that Thrify's policies are terrible, and you are obviously and justifiably upset, but aren't all car rental companies similar? They all try to upsell you on useless and redundant insurance that you probably already have covered. I would not be surprised at all to learn that they all try to pull this GPS trick.

I love statistics and politics, so I love this site, and I'm a little surprised to see anecdotal evidence without some statistics to back it up. Nate, perhaps we can see some follow up analysis? Does Thrifty bite it worse than other car companies or are they all vultures?

psycholosopher said...

And yes, I do realize that there are numerous complaints already lodged on this board against various car companies. However, my question remains: how bad is each car company for the average user?

The BBB or other complaint/review sites could tell us something, but they all suffer from response bias. Either you go to rant about the company or you go to rave about unusually excellent service. However, very rarely does someone take the time to write on a review site that the service was "just ok". The same is true for numerous sources of consumer information...

Nate, consider this a challenge.

Strike back for the consumer!

People before profit!

Jacob said...

@Brian and Walker

Wow. So liberals are fascists because we want to protect the planet and save scarce resources rather than turning everything over for profit?

And apparently you have no argument against climate change, because all you do is bash Al Gore and Nate Silver for believing the facts that actual scientists have discovered.

Tell you what, start questioning the scientific method when you have evidence to back it up. And no, "it's cold today" isn't scientific evidence. "I REALLY hate Al Gore" isn't scientific evidence. And this may come as a huge shock, but "because Ronald Reagan said so" isn't evidence either.

In what f'ed up world is fascism the opposite of plutocracy? I mean really how do you get to the point of believing that?

JBillones said...

"You scratch the skin of a liberal and just below you see the scaly skin of a Junior Mint tyrant. V like, me friends."

I was trying to explain to a friend why I hated the new V TV-series. (Didn't do a very good job.)

One of the reasons was that they changed the bad guys from Nazis -- everyone hates the Nazis -- to an odd hybrid of ultra-liberals with a hidden agenda working with terrorists with a hidden agenda -- an ultra-right-winger's nightmare.

(The whole inversion of the spray-painted V from a symbol of the French resistance to the tagging of a 16 year old idiot was a great example of the mentality of change for change's sake that completely misses and/or ruins the point.)

DCM in FL said...

Re: 'V'

IIRC, when the cheesy mini-series 'V' was out back in the 80's, the CW was that the reptilian visitors was a liberal media attack on Ronnie Raygun & his neo-con band of cold-blooded reptiles out to take control of real humans

this go-round, they seem to have flipped it to be reptilean liberal/visitors rather than the original neo-cons

interesting, and it follows the meme of generral CON counter-attacks on 'liberals' where they throw their own distorted 'truthiness' back

[eg - 'PRO-life' - which always reminds me of 'military intelligence' or 'compassionate conservative']

brian said...

Not sure fascism is the correct label. Whatever label mean "belief that a single centralized govt can dictate the lives of 300M people"...thats liberals.

As for enviro--I'm not a scientist, but the arguments against are out there. All I know is many "science" arguments often come down on ideological terms. I suspect most pro-warming scientists are also liberals.

Walker said...

Jacob, I am 100% against the prevailing global warming...er, I mean "climate change" hysteria because: 1) I do not believe it is happening, and 2) I do not believe the motives of those elites pushing this agenda are pure.

Regarding #2:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html

Wake up, people, liberals and conservatives alike! Funny how the "solution" always equals more money in the pockets of Al Gore and his cronies, Goldman Sachs, etc.

Meanwhile, guess who loses? The Middle Class.

This is a media-driven, elitist "line the pockets" 3-card Monte scheme of such incredible boldness to not be believed.

Expose it for what it is. Shame on them.

DCM in FL said...

WALKER

even IF your paranoia is justified [which I do not believe]...

how can you rationalize continuing the status quo when:

- oil is in limited supply so inevitably we would run out anyway so are we not better seeking other options now ?

- what oil remains has & will continue to have WARs fought over it which is not in our best interests

- we fight WARs so a few oil monopolies can further gouge all of us ???

- the current system transfers ALL of our national wealth to the Middle Eastern despots who then subsidize terror attacks against our country

- the transfer of our wealth has been accomplished by mortgaging the future of our country to CHINA thanks to the status quo pushed by you & your ilk

so even if you deny global warming/climate issues [or the holocaust/genocides] - our country MUSt wean itself off middle eastern oil & borrowing from China ASAP

not bury our heads as you expouse

WV - shrew [Palinism]

brian said...

The initial "V" was against Hitler, not Reagan. They rounded up intellectuals, group labeleing, and there was a Jewish family that was prevalent. I don't remember any sob stories about all the homeless caused by the "Visitors" evil tax cuts.

Robert said...

Not sure fascism is the correct label. Whatever label mean "belief that a single centralized govt can dictate the lives of 300M people"...thats liberals.

I don't think that's a fair charactization either, but it's certainly a lot more reasonable/closer than using the term fascist.

As for enviro--I'm not a scientist, but the arguments against are out there.

And frankly, as a scientist, I assure you they're bunk. But I don't expect you to take my word for it. Educate yourself on the science involved, and then determine for yourself if you agree with the facts.

If your no scientist, how do you know that the arguments against climate change have any more basis in reality than all the evidence and reasoning for it?

All I know is many "science" arguments often come down on ideological terms. I suspect most pro-warming scientists are also liberals.

If the argument has a basis in ideology, you should ignore it. All the credible evidence stands on it's own without resorting to left/right arguments. If someone is trying to convince you with an ideological argument, they're not wearing their scientist hat, and you should ignore them. Unless they're in the soft sciences, where people regularly try to wear both hats, and then you should definitely ignore them. :)

Adam Villani said...

Count me in with Psycholosopher... how do we know how Thrifty compares with other rental car companies in this regard?

Anyway, a couple years ago my wife had to spend multiple several-month-long business trips to Indianapolis, and the company got her a rental car the whole time through Thrifty. No problems.

In fact, she accumulated a bunch of free rental days, and we were able to use them for a week of free rentals in Alaska, where car rentals cost about twice as much as in the lower 48.

Jacob said...

Blogger brian said...

"Whatever label mean "belief that a single centralized govt can dictate the lives of 300M people"...thats liberals."


Hmm. Wrong again there Brian. But it's a very common mistake.

Based on your assumption, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you are not a neocon or business conservative but rather an anti-government or libertarian sort of voter who opposes the PATRIOT Act, FISA, oil wars, religious doctrine in government, gay marriage bans, upper class tax loopholes, and other examples of right-wingers trying to control 300M people. And of course that you didn't vote for Bush in 2004.

Given that assumption, then the fallacy you're committing is creating a false dichotomy--just an invalid argument rather than a disingenuous one. It goes like this:

1. I oppose government dictating how people live.

2. I also oppose liberals.

3. Therefore, liberals support government dictating how people live.

Believe it or not, many many conservatives of all stripes make the same mistakes. It's understandable in a way, but utter BS. Especially if it comes from former supporters of Bush, Reagan, and their neo-corporatist ilk.

brian said...

Robert-

Even science involves alot of interpretation. Happens in my actuary job. You often get 2 diiferent opinions on what numbers mean from2 actuaries

Anyways, I suggest the enviro science movement focus on tangible enviro concerns like asthma or such rather than predicting weather armageddon in 200 years. As someone who lives in a major US city--which should be pollution cental, but seems pretty nice to me--frankly these claims that corporations are all out to poison us strike us skeptics as just warmed over Marxism.

Jacob-

Your last argument makes entirely no sense. And, yes I'm more libertarian--but am for all the things you mentioned.

Tony C. said...

@Brian:

In which case --- You are not a libertarian, you dufus! No libertarian can possibly be for the Patriot Act, it is a contradiction in terms.

Robert said...

Even science involves alot of interpretation. Happens in my actuary job. You often get 2 diiferent opinions on what numbers mean from2 actuaries

If 99.5% of all actuaries in the world came to the same conclusion, what would that tell you?

Anyways, I suggest the enviro science movement focus on tangible enviro concerns like asthma or such rather than predicting weather armageddon in 200 years. As someone who lives in a major US city--which should be pollution cental, but seems pretty nice to me--

Part of the warning that these scientists are trying to deliver is that in 200 years it will be too late. Focusing on "tangible" concerns while ignoring the greater threat is quite frankly idiotic to the greatest degree.

It is said that a frog in a pot of water being brought to a boil won't attempt to jump out, but if you drop it in a pot of boiling water, it will. The scientists are trying to tell you that the water is going to be boiling before long, and your response is "no way guys, this is a great temperature!"

frankly these claims that corporations are all out to poison us strike us skeptics as just warmed over Marxism.

It's not a question of their motives, it's a question of their actions and the effects of their actions. Whether it's intentional or accidental, change is necessary to fix the situation, and corporate interests don't change the resulting effects.

I don't think that most corporations which contribute to the problem are sitting in their offices plotting their next attack on the environment, in fact, I'd be suprised if you could find even one. However, it is true that protecting the environment from actions of corporate (among other) entities means incurring a cost with no immediate tangible benefit. It's simply unnatural to expect businesses to willingly take a hit out of their own free will, which is why the only effective solution is going to come in the form of government regulation. This is the same reason that consumer protections are enacted by government regulation, it's not usually profitable to protect consumers, which is why it's not something we give businesses the option of conforming to.

If you're content to be boiled alive, that's unfortunate, but until you manage to disprove the suggestion that the pot is getting hotter, you shouldn't assume it's not.

Jacob said...

brian said...

"Your last argument makes entirely no sense. And, yes I'm more libertarian--but am for all the things you mentioned.'


You support the PATRIOT Act, FISA, domestic surveillance, wars of choice, etc but you're against a government that dictates the lives of its populace. That, my friend, makes no sense. My argument works off the assumption that you failed to understand liberalism rather than just making s**t up. If I'm wrong in that impression, I apologize.