Take a look at Europe and Canada. People expected the liberals to fix everything for them and when that didn't happen, they started to elect more conservatives
What an insightful political analysis. However, at least for Canada, it is completely wrong based on what I've read. My understanding is that conservatives won in Canada for three main reasons. One, the liberal government was corrupt. Two, like in the US, conservatives successfully convinced many Canadians that liberals were only interested in the cities. Three, the liberal vote was diluted by the smaller parties Bloc Quebecois and NDP (not meant to imply that all Bloc or NDP voters would have voted liberal otherwise). Canada isn't going to suddenly give up national heathcare because they have a 'conservative' government. As the sibling pointed out, Canadian con != US con.
Any canucks please chime in and correct as necessary.
BTW this article appears to invalidate your earlier argument re: AMA.
Even the American Medical Association (AMA), the influential lobbying group for physicians, has abandoned its long-standing position that an "oversupply exists or is immediately expected."... Last month, it recommended increasing the number of U.S. medical students by 15%.
Either way, it seems like the problem is money. Why has the market failed to provide the funds to put more people through residencies? It doesn't have to come from the government. Funny that in the OP you're essentially arguing against government regulation and here obliquely appear to be calling for more subsidies. Damned if they do, damned if they don't?
But doesn't your precious free market theory dictate that people should be willing to invest in more medical schools if there is this untapped demand? What exactly are the 'medical schools and the AMA' doing to prevent new schools from opening?
And what part of the government is fixing prices for the general population? For the most part it is HMOs that are doing this.
UHHH how about the military bases that were in Saudi Arabia that bin Laden SPECIFICALLY called out as being a problem? FYI, those bases were quietly removed after 9/11. It wasn't until then that OBL started using the Palestinian conflict as a boogeyman.
That says the president can't pardon (or otherwise reprieve) themself in case of impeachment.
Right. I was talking in the general case earlier.
As for what happened in the aftermath of the 21 amendment, I'm not sure and a quick search didn't provide anything insightful. One thing that's important to note is that the 21st am. put the question of booze to the states. Therefore, if states had laws outlawing booze from the 18th amendment, those laws were not rendered unconstitutional by the 21st. Only the federal laws were. It appears that my use of this instance as an example was poorly chosen.
Seems to me the same spirit can't make an illegal action legal retroactively.
It does seem that way, I know, but the legal definition of ex post facto with respect to criminal law only applies to making things "more illegal". The Supreme Court ruled on this very early in the Republic (1798). Thing is, if you can't make an illegal thing legal retroactively, you get the rather ridiculous situation (imo) where, say, people could be prosecuted for bootlegging after the passage of the 21st Amendment.
Also, legal scholars generally agree that the Constitution does not prohibit the President from pardoning themselves. Of course such a situation would be politically dangerous, imo, and would be subject to review by SCOTUS.
I don't think there's that much really being 'made up' by reporters.. but commonly nowadays they have to work using anonymous sources, which leads to a lack of accountability and verifiability. Because all of the government press offices have basically turned into propaganda machines, reporters have to go deeper to get the real information about what's going on.
Not quite. SCOTUS actually held that Florida Supreme Court's actions were acceptable by a vote of 6-3.
The main reason why SCOTUS stopped the recount was the majority felt that equal protection was violated by having the votes counted by differing standards (7-2). SCOTUS then said that because the Florida legislature had set a deadline of 12/12 for reasons of meeting a federal deadline for elector guaranty, there was simply no time to come up with and implement a state-wide standard (5-4).
It's seen as violating state's rights is because SCOTUS was basically saying that they didn't trust Florida's government to provide a fair recount.
Changing the law to make something that was illegal, legal, does not meet the definition of 'ex post facto' law. Ex post facto only applies when the law is tightened: e.g., being prosecuted for something that is now illegal but was legal when the act was committed, or being sentenced using new penalties, etc.
This post should not be construed to mean that I think Bush should get away with the NSA spying. He violated a law of the nation and should be held to account by the Congress.
It's probably legal for me to teach my son about the mature female anatomy and sex by showing him pornographic pictures
I'd think that really depends on where you live. A bored prosecutor and a jury of prudes and you just might have child endangerment or contributing to deliquency of a minor, etc.
This piece on DailyKos outlines why this likely isn't the case, written by a very well respected economist. Granted, that story is geared towards Iran, but the arguments apply to Iraq in 2000.
I remember smelling something fishy when they taught me in high school economics that we could magically pick the right box of goods and determine a number to show what inflation was.
The something fishy would be your economics teacher. The CPI is not meant to be an end-all be-all number, and if that's what you were taught then I'm sorry. In fact the CPI is not technically an inflation number. You'll note in most news reports the CPI is introduced with "widely used as an inflation indicator" or some other disclaimer.
Ultimately the CPI is an average of the cost of consumer items, so there will naturally be individual values that you can pick out and use to 'prove' the CPI is wrong.
The BLS had nothing to do with the 2004 election and the article has nothing to prove those ridiculous claims. Is this supposed to be satire? Or some sort of analogy? The author should know that analogies are supposed to make things clearer, not more confusing. Elections aren't economics and trying to compare the two is simply disingenuous.
The article links to LaRouche material to prove the BLS manipulates the CPI. The LaRouche material relies on ONE example to 'prove' the numbers are rigged. It also pulls out ONE portion of the statistical method to "prove" that the whole method is wrong. A BLS spokesman would never make political statements like the one quoted in the article and the article links to a 404. It also pulls out ONE data point to "prove" seasonal adjustment is wrong.
The BLS is made up largely of career statisticians and takes its work very seriously. The methodologies are public and, yes, there are criticisms, and BLS continually works to improve their methods. While the article has a point about 'core' CPI, the 'non-core' CPI number is still published and can be used by anyone who wants to use it.
These people are really idiots. Do you think computing an inflation number across a country of 300 million people and 3.7 million square miles is easy? Do you think there is a 'perfect' way to compute this number? Let's have it then. BLS would love to know.
Slashdot Mirror
Take a look at Europe and Canada. People expected the liberals to fix everything for them and when that didn't happen, they started to elect more conservatives
What an insightful political analysis. However, at least for Canada, it is completely wrong based on what I've read. My understanding is that conservatives won in Canada for three main reasons. One, the liberal government was corrupt. Two, like in the US, conservatives successfully convinced many Canadians that liberals were only interested in the cities. Three, the liberal vote was diluted by the smaller parties Bloc Quebecois and NDP (not meant to imply that all Bloc or NDP voters would have voted liberal otherwise). Canada isn't going to suddenly give up national heathcare because they have a 'conservative' government. As the sibling pointed out, Canadian con != US con.
Any canucks please chime in and correct as necessary.
And I think gay marriage is not a guaranteed freedom in the Constitution.
Do you believe heterosexual marriage is guaranteed in the Constitution? Why or why not?
They might be online somewhere, but if it doesn't come with the package, it doesn't exist.
So when the game gets patched.. it doesn't exist?
It's a game. It doesn't demonstrate anything, pro-ID or otherwise.
Right. Anyone construing my post as a justification for any actions is mistaken.
But doesn't your precious free market theory dictate that people should be willing to invest in more medical schools if there is this untapped demand? What exactly are the 'medical schools and the AMA' doing to prevent new schools from opening?
And what part of the government is fixing prices for the general population? For the most part it is HMOs that are doing this.
For eg: My entire CD collection of 20yrs or so, I have ripped and put on my ipod. Ever since I did that I have lost half my cds.
So you had no problems keeping CDs before the IPod.. but once that came around you suddenly lost the ability to keep track of a piece of plastic?
UHHH how about the military bases that were in Saudi Arabia that bin Laden SPECIFICALLY called out as being a problem? FYI, those bases were quietly removed after 9/11. It wasn't until then that OBL started using the Palestinian conflict as a boogeyman.
Care to show me the AQ communique that sounds like the GP post? That's right, you can't.
You *don't* need to talk like *this* to get your point *across*, okay? Also, *paragraphs* are your *friend*.
That says the president can't pardon (or otherwise reprieve) themself in case of impeachment.
Right. I was talking in the general case earlier.
As for what happened in the aftermath of the 21 amendment, I'm not sure and a quick search didn't provide anything insightful. One thing that's important to note is that the 21st am. put the question of booze to the states. Therefore, if states had laws outlawing booze from the 18th amendment, those laws were not rendered unconstitutional by the 21st. Only the federal laws were. It appears that my use of this instance as an example was poorly chosen.
Seems to me the same spirit can't make an illegal action legal retroactively.
It does seem that way, I know, but the legal definition of ex post facto with respect to criminal law only applies to making things "more illegal". The Supreme Court ruled on this very early in the Republic (1798). Thing is, if you can't make an illegal thing legal retroactively, you get the rather ridiculous situation (imo) where, say, people could be prosecuted for bootlegging after the passage of the 21st Amendment.
Also, legal scholars generally agree that the Constitution does not prohibit the President from pardoning themselves. Of course such a situation would be politically dangerous, imo, and would be subject to review by SCOTUS.
Interesting suggestion.. but it's important to note that those aerial photos can be several years old and may not reflect reality anymore.
I don't think there's that much really being 'made up' by reporters.. but commonly nowadays they have to work using anonymous sources, which leads to a lack of accountability and verifiability. Because all of the government press offices have basically turned into propaganda machines, reporters have to go deeper to get the real information about what's going on.
Not quite. SCOTUS actually held that Florida Supreme Court's actions were acceptable by a vote of 6-3.
The main reason why SCOTUS stopped the recount was the majority felt that equal protection was violated by having the votes counted by differing standards (7-2). SCOTUS then said that because the Florida legislature had set a deadline of 12/12 for reasons of meeting a federal deadline for elector guaranty, there was simply no time to come up with and implement a state-wide standard (5-4).
It's seen as violating state's rights is because SCOTUS was basically saying that they didn't trust Florida's government to provide a fair recount.
Changing the law to make something that was illegal, legal, does not meet the definition of 'ex post facto' law. Ex post facto only applies when the law is tightened: e.g., being prosecuted for something that is now illegal but was legal when the act was committed, or being sentenced using new penalties, etc.
This post should not be construed to mean that I think Bush should get away with the NSA spying. He violated a law of the nation and should be held to account by the Congress.
It's probably legal for me to teach my son about the mature female anatomy and sex by showing him pornographic pictures
I'd think that really depends on where you live. A bored prosecutor and a jury of prudes and you just might have child endangerment or contributing to deliquency of a minor, etc.
Thing is, all of the items you list would no doubt increase the cost of your ticket. Well, except #4.
There are issues the Dems can legitimately claim to be better on
I don't think I made this claim. In any case, I will seek out inflation-adjusted budget figures to perform this analysis.
This piece on DailyKos outlines why this likely isn't the case, written by a very well respected economist. Granted, that story is geared towards Iran, but the arguments apply to Iraq in 2000.
I have started to calculate the rate of inflation in my life. This is the only one that matters.
If that's the only one that matters, then why would you bother to link to an article that attempts to show how the CPI is rigged?
I remember smelling something fishy when they taught me in high school economics that we could magically pick the right box of goods and determine a number to show what inflation was.
The something fishy would be your economics teacher. The CPI is not meant to be an end-all be-all number, and if that's what you were taught then I'm sorry. In fact the CPI is not technically an inflation number. You'll note in most news reports the CPI is introduced with "widely used as an inflation indicator" or some other disclaimer.
Ultimately the CPI is an average of the cost of consumer items, so there will naturally be individual values that you can pick out and use to 'prove' the CPI is wrong.
That article isn't great. It's a pile of shit.
The BLS had nothing to do with the 2004 election and the article has nothing to prove those ridiculous claims. Is this supposed to be satire? Or some sort of analogy? The author should know that analogies are supposed to make things clearer, not more confusing. Elections aren't economics and trying to compare the two is simply disingenuous.
The article links to LaRouche material to prove the BLS manipulates the CPI. The LaRouche material relies on ONE example to 'prove' the numbers are rigged. It also pulls out ONE portion of the statistical method to "prove" that the whole method is wrong. A BLS spokesman would never make political statements like the one quoted in the article and the article links to a 404. It also pulls out ONE data point to "prove" seasonal adjustment is wrong.
The BLS is made up largely of career statisticians and takes its work very seriously. The methodologies are public and, yes, there are criticisms, and BLS continually works to improve their methods. While the article has a point about 'core' CPI, the 'non-core' CPI number is still published and can be used by anyone who wants to use it.
These people are really idiots. Do you think computing an inflation number across a country of 300 million people and 3.7 million square miles is easy? Do you think there is a 'perfect' way to compute this number? Let's have it then. BLS would love to know.
Nice work.