Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - kidcoyote

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 245
« on: Today at 02:31 PM »
This is no leader. Ukraine, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Libya, this and Ferguson, and he has to vacation and play golf? This guy's a spades. A 5 minute teleprompter speech and off to the links. Hollow man.

« on: Yesterday at 11:06 PM »
Because a cop shot and killed the kid.  I get why it's a story.  I just don't understand why some media have decided that the cop was definitely in the wrong before the investigation is complete.

Agreed. But patience and understanding does not exist today and the people who tune into the 24/7 news channels want all the latest information, which is why those stations are such jokes because they print so much incorrect information. No one would tune into CNN/MSNBC/FOX if they didn't talk about it or if they said, we are awaiting further details of the investigation. I'm sure Nancy Grace has been a treat during these events.

Think I read an article today saying that the cop had a fractured orbital bone, though I don't know if that's in relation to the events that led to him killing Michael Brown.

Don't you think it a little unfair to include Fox in this? Whether you agree with their views or not, I don't recall them ever convicting someone before the evidence in. What Wolf Blitzer did was outrageous, and MSNBC also. I was listening to NPR today, and had to turn it off. It was surreal. All they had on were people saying how awful blacks are treated, and how it's shoot first, ask questions later. It was appalling. They weren't convicting the cop in this incident, but the whole show focused on Ferguson and racism, insinuating this was racism, plain and simple. This just doesn't match the facts of this case. Nor is this a national problem. There are more gun deaths in Chicago annually, primarily blacks killing blacks(about 500) than there are cop shootings of people nationally annually(about 400). 50 states vs 1 city? Sure it's an issue, but not a priority, not by a long stretch.

If I'm wrong on the Fox inclusion, show me an example where Fox has or is creating a lynch mob mentality, like CNN, MSNBC and NPR(awful) have done with this. Your inclusion of them with what the others have done in this matter is unwarranted. Tarring them in the same way is a nice trick of spreading the blame of coverage, but not true.

Here's an example of what Fox is saying. You may disagree, but it's not the same as the others. The others have a Duke Lacrosse mentality. Fox doesn't. And Eric Holder is not making it better in any way. The WH should focus on their responsibilities, not local police matters, nor playing golf.

« on: Yesterday at 10:45 PM »
Who'd a thunk it? Better late than never. Next thing we'll find out is Tim is doing something similar. ;)

Plouffe For Free Markets

« on: Yesterday at 01:43 PM »
A good example of why states and cities should not give incentives to companies. They should have a consistent policy of taxes, regulations, utilities, etc. No handouts. This is a plan by then Governor, Charlie Crist. In short, he gave $30 million of state funds, and the city of Port St. Lucie committed almost $40 million to build an animation studio specifically for Digital Domain, which did much animation work, including winning an award for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". Well, guess what? Prior to opening, DD declared bankruptcy, the building is empty, the city is on the hook for $40 million in bonds, which taxpayers will have to cover. The building has been for sale for over 2 years, and as yet, no acceptable bids. The city risks downgrades by the rating services. Charlie Crist, running for governor(again) was the driving force, and is being hounded by this in ads by his opponent. Once again, government in over their head trying to do things best left to the private sector. Maybe Crist should foot the bills personally. Is it too much to ask to just run city and state government, police, fire, etc., and allow the private sector to take risks with their own money, rather than luring them with taxpayer money?

« on: Yesterday at 11:53 AM »
Why is Ferguson even a story?

Because a cop shot and killed the kid.  I get why it's a story.  I just don't understand why some media have decided that the cop was definitely in the wrong before the investigation is complete.

I get why it's a story too. But should it be a story? I just think 40 black kids killed last month in Chicago, primarily by other black kids, should be a much bigger story. This Ferguson story is a story, not because it's so common, but because it's so rare. I think I saw a stat that there are 400 cop And violent crimes by blacks vs whites is 15 to 1 vs the other way. You're right, the media is making this a lynch mob mentality.

The biggest violent crime story in the country is black vs. black crime, but that doesn't fit the liberal narrative of racism, so they have no interest in it. This violence, black vs. black,  is far worse than in 1960. Was poverty and racism less back then?

« on: Yesterday at 11:27 AM »

I'd say 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' fits here. When someone is so wrong, makes such a false statement, one at such odds with reality, why believe another word? Would you believe another word from one who believed babies came from storks? This guy deserves the same treatment.

Funny.  That's exactly the view I have of you.

Except you can't find any examples. Not big ones anyway. In that guy's piece, one of his central points is wrong. Loose money and inflation doesn't hurt the rich. They have assets which appreciate. He's an idiot. It's the poor and middle class, those without homes and assets who are most hurt, and those on fixed incomes, like retirees. People who don't know this should not comment on economics or inflation. It appears Paul Volcker got Krugman fired, and whether or not that's true, what Volcker states is true: the main function of a central bank is price stability. That requires defending the currency against debasement. This author is harping on the last 5 years, as if that's a legitimate time period for certainty. There are at least 2 millennium to demonstrate the disasters that follow currency debasement.

There's another aspect of inflation which people misunderstand. It does not require an overheated economy to cause price spikes. Look at Argentina today, or Venezuela. Argentina's inflation rate is expected to be 30% this year, Venezuela's is running at 57%. Their economies are not strong, just the opposite. Venezuela's is a disaster, and printing money is not helping. Just the opposite. Here are the worst inflation's in history. None have to do with a strong economy. All have to do with printing money to reduce debt burdens.

« on: August 19, 2014, 08:37 AM »
The media didn't incite either of those things.  They might be fanning the flames a little at this point, but if anything they were late on the Ferguson stuff and most of the guys I've heard talking about Stewart have said just the opposite of Cowherd.

Don't confuse the 24/7 News Cycle's self-made obligation to hang on every little story for the same thing as 'inciting the masses'.  These are both big stories that deserve the coverage they are getting.

The Stewart thing is only a story because he's a champion driver from the biggest circuit in the country.  Insert a no name guy into that car, and nobody is even talking about it outside the sprint track racing community.  And I've heard more than just Cowherd make similar comments.  I've read a couple articles as well.  Seems irresponsible to place blame before any blame is factually established. 

You might be right about the media getting to Ferguson late.  But all I saw last week and into the weekend was the media playing up how many times the guy was shot and a couple of witnesses suggesting Brown did nothing wrong.  And because of this, all cops are now evil.

Of course I'm exaggerating some, but I'm just getting tired of the media deciding how people should view events (perhaps calling a talk show host "media" isn't fair either).

I don't think you're exaggerating, though I haven't followed the Stewart, so I'll stick to Ferguson. Let's stick to some basic facts:

1. Black on white crime vs white on black crime is 15 to 1.
2. Last month, 40 people, primarily black youths, were gunned down in Chicago.

Why is Ferguson even a story?

« on: August 19, 2014, 08:25 AM »
Fiat money talk:

Not sure where you get all this stuff. "The rich fear inflation, because they're the creditors and they have the megaphones"?  Is this a joke? Everyone, at least those with common sense, and some knowledge, know that the rich hold assets, stocks, real estate, art , etc., and in many cases, have used debt to finance those purchases. So , they benefit more than anyone, by far,  from loose monetary policies. It's those without the ability to accumulate assest, those on fixed incomes, those struggling to get by and are living hand to mouth who are most hurt by a debased currency. Read Paul Volcker, for goodness sakes. This is exactly why Krugman is out at Princeton. His loony ideas criticized by alum Volcker.

I'd say 'falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus' fits here. When someone is so wrong, makes such a false statement, one at such odds with reality, why believe another word? Would you believe another word from one who believed babies came from storks? This guy deserves the same treatment.

« on: August 15, 2014, 02:20 PM »

Old Boy and Dragon Tattoo from this list.  But I think you pointed out a couple others that I also checked out.  Not sure which, since others were also recommending movies too.  Old Boy was so bizarre until the ending, when it all became clear.  One of the best movies I've ever watched.

Oldboy definitely was unique. A well read guy in my office said it was a ripoff of "The Stranger", "The Count of Monte Cristo" and maybe another, but as I don't read that much of that anyway, I loved it. But did you see the 2nd and 3rd part of Dragon Tattoo movies? Not as complex as the first, but good in their own rights. In the second, she goes after her father, and the third is a courtoom drama, as she's on trial.

Of that list, City of God and The Lives of Others are really something. And if you like Hitchcock, Headhunters is in that genre, cat and mouse. Pretty intense for about 45 minutes, with no relief, right til the end. Corporate headhunter married to beautiful woman gets in financial squeeze and he resorts to art theft to keep up his lifestyle. But it's his headhunter job which gets him in trouble.  Great story, Jo Nesbo book. Funny, daring, exciting, edge of your seat kind of stuff. I've watched it 3 or 4 times. Some jump out of your seat scenes. Vivid. I just saw New World, so it being fresh, I might be overrating it. But best thing I've seen in probably 2 years. And Korean films have really improved, musically, cinematography wise, acting, everything. Much more polished. Yet they still retain that rawness evident in Oldboy. Foreign films more real, earthy, gritty, with less special effects, more about the human condition. Here, we get so many superhero and comic book movies, it's kind of tired. I like some of them, but still. There's an execution type scene in New World, at which I found it tough to stay seated. Not gory, just intense, sad, gripping. And a wicked twist in the end.

« on: August 14, 2014, 04:28 PM »
Maybe I should become a music advisor?

Or perhaps a movie critic.  I have checked out some of your recommendations and think you've been mostly spot on -- especially with the foreign films.

Thanks, bud. And kudos to you for the dietary recommendations. I don't always eat that way, but I know it's right. I'm going for pork tenderloin tonight. It's so soft, you can pull it off the bone with a flimsy plastic fork.

Not sure which foreign ones you saw, but one thing I really like about foreign films is that they're so different from each other. Like, I like martial arts movies, and Hero was great. There's another, I can't remember the name, also good. But currently, I'm very focused on Scandinavia(always) and I now like Korea, whose films have really become much more polished. New World is pretty slick, a big upgrade from Oldboy. Not that Oldboy wasn't great, but New World has better cinematography, music, scene changes, etc. Scandinavian movies and shows are funny, as it's always the same actors. And it seems there are like 15-20 of them. It's kind of funny. Mads Mikkelsen, his brother Lars, Sophie Grabol, Kim Bodnia, the blonde editor in The Dragon Tattoo, the sidekick in Forbrydelsen, the killer in Headhunters(Jamie Lannister in Game of Thrones) can usually be found in multiple films, whether Danish or Swedish.

Really new stuff, which I'm trying to get into, are Turkish films. The Cannes film festival Palme D'Or winner this year(best pic) was Winter Sleep, in Turkish, Kis Uykusu. But I can't find it. I looked up the director's prior films, and watched the most current, and it wasn't very good. Too long, in need of major editing, like cutting an hour out. I really just look at lists. Here's a list of 50, supposedly the last decade. I've seen the following:


I may download some of the rest, as I don't know them.

I'd say 1,2,3,4, 10, 12 and 20 are must sees. And 8, as it's the creepiest thing I can recall, child vampire, and 31, Russian, along with its second film, Daywatch, pretty good. Number 8, has a woman infected by a vampire, and the cats sense it, and attack her. It's a wild scene, as 10 cats are hanging off her as she fights them off, spinning and screaming. Pretty well done. As Russian, without special effect capabilities, Nightwatch and Daywatch a bit rough, but worth seeing. I'd add Headhunters(danish), New World(Korean) and the Forbydelsen TV series(Danish). The Eagle(Danish, Ornen) also pretty good series. But Frobrydelsen has great female lead. And the music is slick, very well done. I might watch it again. I'd say, Lisbeth Salander(Noomi Rapace, Dragon Tattoo), Beatrice Kiddo(Uma Thurman, Kill Bill) and Sarah Lund(Sophie Grabol, Forbrydelsen) are best female roles ever, if you like strong women. The second and third of the Dragon Tatto series have to be seen, The Girl Who Played With Fire and The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest. IMO, best trilogy ever. Amelie, French, a feel good, must see movie. Audrey Tatou a real beauty, and the film is magical. She's like a French Audrey Hepburn in her youth. What can be better than that?

« on: August 14, 2014, 01:39 PM »
Pretty much all media, Fox, Washington Post, The Tribune Company, National Press Club, National Photographers Association, McClatchy and on and on, have come out against Michael Mann and his lawsuit, by filing an amici curaie brief with the court, in defense of free speech. Big stuff. If Mann loses, remember he's been countersued, for I think $20 million. As I've stated before, this is going to be another headache for PSU. The BOT better be on top of this. Remember, Spanier did the investigation of Mann. But of 4 questions/topics to be covered, Spanier only covered 2, and the investigators were all PSU employees. Of the other 2 topics, he said something like, "there was no reason to consider them." Pretty similar to his handling of the JS affair. Snuff it.

« on: August 14, 2014, 01:27 PM »
Did Princeton alum Paul Volcker get Krugman fired from Princeton? Sure looks like it.

« on: August 14, 2014, 01:20 PM »
Nice rundown about what we know and mostly don't know about whether increased inequality is bad:

Nice rundown from a music major? At least I have a BA in economics. Maybe I should become a music advisor? PhD in social welfare? WTF does that even entail? It's a freakin' invented subject.

Bernstein graduated with a Bachelors Degree in Fine Arts from the Manhattan School of Music where he studied double bass with Orin O'Brien. He earned a Masters Degree in Social Work from the Hunter College School of Social Work, and, from Columbia University, he received a Masters Degree in Philosophy and a Ph.D. in Social Welfare.

And he's Joe Biden's economic advisor. Boy, are we in sorry hands. When does this nightmare end? Underregulation of financial markets? Huh? The biggest parts of the financial markets are the US Treasury market and the mortgage market, the latter is 90% Fannie and Freddie, two government run institutions and the former is the government. HTF is that unregulated? And underinvestment in transportation? In today's WSJ, CSX is buying another 100 locomotives(adding to its already 3,700), Burlington Northern, 500, as they can't keep up with shipper demand. The airline business is also booming, buying planes in droves. Are these not transportation investments? What is he lamenting, no building of high speed passenger trains to nowhere but run by Democratic donors who want government grants?

« on: August 12, 2014, 03:46 PM »
1895 entrance high school entrance exam in Kansas. Yes, it's tailored to kids in the farm belt, but 8th graders taking this, just on the english and the math, would struggle badly in today's schools. I know a former 6th grade social studies (Mt. Vernon) a very liberal woman, who quit teaching because she couldn't teach. The kids reaching her class couldn't write a sentence...6th grade! This is far, far worse than 50 years ago. And most inner city schools are like this. NYC is terrible in probably 60% of the schools. And the 3 best public highs in NYC, Brooklyn Tech, Stuyvesant and Bronx HS of science(Richard Lindzen's alma mater) have annual admission tests and pick the top students for entry. Intensely competitive. I think the top go to Stuyvesant, then Brooklyn Tech, then the Bronx HS of Science. But now, as the schools are becoming packed by Asians, who get tutored for a year(at least) before testing, they want to make the schools "open", and are considering eliminating testing, and having a "diverse" student body. So, the best and the brightest, will have to go elsewhere to get higher achieving classes, as the new "diverse" student bodies will not be up to the much tougher curriculum currently at the schools. Dumb. In time, they'll just resemble other mediocre (or worse) NYC schools, with dumbed down classes.

« on: August 12, 2014, 03:29 PM »
Here's another piece by Brad DeLong on Hayek, which he has Bad Hayek and Good Hayek, but he's not characterizing it correctly. For example:

Good Hayek:

The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born… (II)

Bad Hayek:

The most serious development is the growth of a measure of arbitrary administrative coercion and the progressive destruction of the cherished foundation of British liberty, the Rule of Law…. [E]conomic planning under the Labour government [has] carried it to a point which makes it doubtful whether it can be said that the Rule of Law still prevails in Britain… (III)

And, as Paul Samuelson wrote:

The Hayek I met on various occasions–at the LSE, at the University of Chicago, in Stockholm (1945), at Lake Constance-Lindau Nobel summer conferences–definitely bemoaned progressive income taxation, state-provided medical care and retirement pensions, fiat currencies remote from gold and subject to discretionary policy decisions by central bank and treasury agents…. This [is] what constitutes his predicted serfdoms… (IV)

But these are not inconsistent. Hayek believed the bottom 5-10% needed to be taken care of. What he saw was coercion, not to take care of the bottom 5-10%, but numbers far larger, in an administrative state gone wild, which as Samuelson noted in his meeting with him in 1945. DeLong should know this, and certainly does, so his argument is a false dichotomy. Sadly, this is done all the time. And with low information readers/voters, those who haven't read Hayek, are convinced DeLong is being honest. He's not. Currently, our government spending, federal alone, is about 25% of GDP. On this, Hayek would be horrified, but that doesn't mean he believed the bottom 5-10% shouldn't be taken care of. In 1961's budget, JFK spent 50% on defense. Today, it's more like 15%. Was poverty more rampant then than today? The War on Poverty is over, and poverty won. Reading levels in inner cities, is a disgrace, far below what it was in 1960. HS graduation rates in inner cities are abominable. Can DeLong really defend what's happened under the guise of social benefits? Where are the benefits of the War on Poverty? Who benefited? Planned Parenthood?

« on: August 12, 2014, 02:42 PM »
Hayek and Keynes.

Another socialist touting its benefits. What a ridiculous piece. Do people realize that Allende's bid for a second term was in violation of Chile's constitution? It'd be like Obama running for a third term(perish the thought). So, when dictators break the law, they can't be removed, even though Chile's congress and courts demanded it? Sure the US was involved. Big deal. We supported those in favor of respecting the Chilean constitution. Chile's constitution calls for "unlimited non-consecutive 4 year terms". Non-consecutive. So, isn't a coup justified, when the current president runs again, in violation of the country's laws? Sure, the left hates it, but it's the law. Then again, they hate all laws that don't fit their agenda. We're seeing that ourselves at home.

Brad Delong is the perfect example of what Yale prof David Gelernter says his students are, "bright, ambitious, motivated and ignorant." His comments on Hayek make clear he never read, The Road to Serfdom., probably reading the amazon reviews from the 1 star commenters. I read the book, and recognize none of his comments as being in it, at least not important points. I see he's a prof at Berkeley. That explains it. And he quotes Krugman on his website. That's funny. These type pieces are always out of fringe departments, newspapers, magazines. I mean, what does one expect out of Berkeley? Next, we'll get Oberlin or Middlebury(Bill McKibben). Economics is the #1 major at Middlebury, and they don't even teach monetarism nor any Milton Friedman, just Keynesian theory. That's negligent.

OT / Re: OT: Movie Thread
« on: August 12, 2014, 01:53 PM »
Saw two four things:

Real Humans, a Swedish series, one of weirdest shows ever, about human owned robots. Some use them for housecleaning, driving, sex, some escape, get reprogrammed. Weird, but good. An 8.0 on imdb, and sold to 50 countries.

Another Korean gem, New World. Absolutely fabulous flick. Might be better than Oldboy. It's certainly more polished, about Korean criminal enterprises, with fight for control. Sort of like a Korean godfather. At 2 hrs, 12 minutes, didn't want it to end. Here's a review. IMO, most of the good work in the world is foreign, unless you're hooked on special effects.

Saw another film, which was so forgettable, I forgot. Return of the Planet of the Apes. Boy, what a stinker. Ridiculous. Gary Oldman picking up a paycheck. Planet of the Snooze would be better title.

And another, Chef, by and staring Jon Favreau. Not good. He wrote it and directed it and got some high powered friends in it, like Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey, Jr., Scarlett Johannson(love her with black hair) and John Leguizamo(sp). Favreau did the Iron Man movies, so Downey probably did him a favor in a bit part. Bad script. Went off a cliff.

« on: August 12, 2014, 01:33 PM »
Investment banker justifies investment banking:

While I don't like investment bankers nor private equity places, they do serve a purpose. In the former, they can help limit liability. If you take a company like Sealed Air. Some years ago, more than 20, they bought a Texas company, which had a building division. They sold the building division within 3 months. Sealed Air makes bubble wrap, and other packaging materials, and as the building part didn't fit, they sold it ASAP. Problem was, the building division used asbestos, and 20 years later, Sealed Air was sued. And paid big, like $2+ billion. Not that an investment banker would catch this, but they should. They can also find buyers. While I hate Goldman Sachs, and believe their nickname, "vampire snakes", fits, they go have global reach, as they are primary treasury dealers, and deal with every major bank in the world.

On private equity, don't like them either, but what's the alternative? Some companies, like Staples, Sports Authority often can't get bank financing, and have to rely on private equity. I see them as legal loan sharks, but a necessary evil. What I don't like is the firms like KKR, which can put down 10% and borrow the rest to take over a publicly listed company. This should be illegal, in violation of Regulation T, which requires one put up 50% to buy stock. Paul Volcker warned on this. Takeovers of public companies should not be able to be financed at more than 50%. But a struggling dairy operation, or builder, strapped for funds, may have no choice if banks won't extend credit.

« on: August 11, 2014, 01:31 PM »
But the law doesn't - as far as protected classes go. And sexual orientation is not a protected class.

In some states it is.

It's easy to split hairs, Ron. Let's say you're a photographer or a baker. Do you have to provide services to:

a wedding where attendees,and the bride and groom, are dressed in KKK clothing, with a cross burning at the site?
a neo-Nazi wedding where everyone is in Nazi dress?
a NAMBLA function?
a Republican neo-con event?
an Islamicist function where they chant "death to Israel" and "the ISIS flag will fly over the White House"?

and the question I asked originally. "Do PR firms have to provide services to those who don't believe in catastrophic climate change?" If you believe they need to photograph and provide cakes for those they are opposed to, it seems the PR firms would be forced to provide their services, to be consistent. If you don't agree, please state your case(sorry if I missed it.)

I find the left has no logical reasoning. They like to split hairs. At UVM, a publicly funded institution, if you don't believe in "social justice" you can't get a job. So, while the left preaches tolerance and acceptance, it's only for those who agree with them. The left is the most intolerant group imaginable.

« on: August 11, 2014, 01:20 PM »
Q for the board. Recently, there were two court decisions, requiring:

1. photographers could not deny to photograph gay weddings(New Mexico), and
2. bakeries could not deny making cakes for gay weddings/events(Colorado).

On the first, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, so the ruling held. The second has not yet appealed. As I believe in personal freedom, I disagree with both rulings, though the business owners may be stupid, I don't see that as a crime.

But if you disagree with me, and agree to the rulings, can I get an opinion on this? As I try to be consistent, I agree that these PR companies, however stupid this may be, stupidity is not a crime. But apparently, this behavior is not permitted. So, do those affected have a legal case?

Do you also believe that housing units should be able to deny housing to blacks, Jews, etc?

I don't - and I sure don't see any difference with photographers or bakers.

If you are going to offer up a public service you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who you provide that service to.

Won't respond to a question before you answer my question. Nice trick, though. But I guess you agree, the PR firms cannot deny providing their services to those who don't believe in climate change? I guess that's an answer.

« on: August 11, 2014, 01:16 PM »

« on: August 6, 2014, 02:44 PM »
Q for the board. Recently, there were two court decisions, requiring:

1. photographers could not deny to photograph gay weddings(New Mexico), and
2. bakeries could not deny making cakes for gay weddings/events(Colorado).

On the first, the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal, so the ruling held. The second has not yet appealed. As I believe in personal freedom, I disagree with both rulings, though the business owners may be stupid, I don't see that as a crime.

But if you disagree with me, and agree to the rulings, can I get an opinion on this? As I try to be consistent, I agree that these PR companies, however stupid this may be, stupidity is not a crime. But apparently, this behavior is not permitted. So, do those affected have a legal case?

« on: August 6, 2014, 02:35 PM »
Aaron, Mays, Mantle and Frank Robinson took greenies? The game was almost always about pitching and defense. PED's changed this formula. How do you know the extent of greenies? Sure, big drugs in the 80's, but it was cocaine, at least with guys like Dave Parker and Gooden, and probably why Keith Hernandez was traded. These guys were not using performance enhancing drugs. In the case of Gooden, his performance suffered greatly.

Whether those drugs actually enhance their performance or not is open to debate.  It's a fact that illegal drugs were used by major league players way before the PED era.  I'm not sure what that means.  I'm of the opinion that any cheating is cheating and trying to classify some cheating (spitballs, corked bats, etc.) as acceptable and some as unacceptable (PED users) is hypocritical.  Bonds started using PEDs because he knew Sosa and McGuire were using them.  He knew he was the better player and set out to level the field.  Baseball knew something was up -- they had to know, guys are saying it wasn't a very well kept secret.  To now say that guys like Bonds, Sosa, McGuire, etc. don't belong in the Hall of Fame is a joke.  Had MLB given a crap back in the '90s when PEDs became popular, we wouldn't have this controversy now.  None of the stars would have needed to use them in order to keep up with the other stars, or the mediocre players who suddenly got better.  To me, the best players from every era belong in the Hall -- whether or not they "cheated".  MLB knew about it and still let them play.  Case closed.

I don't understand this stance.

What could the MLB have done?  The players union fought tooth and nail against any kind of testing whatsoever.  It took Congressional Hearings and pressure for the Attorney General's Office to get the laughable testing we have today.

Messy, and all sides deserve blame. But the hr's hit by Bonds, McGwire and Sosa( 3 years over 60 hr's?) showed how ridiculous the game had become. I'm sure there are golfers and tennis players using the stuff. Tiger's certainly had some odd golf injuries, like maybe his muscles too much for his body? But IMO, baseball needs integrity of stats, and those guys both destroyed them, and kept possibly better players down. McGwire hit .215 his second year, then came the juice.

If anybody should be in the HOF? Pete Rose. His crimes far less. Once the PED users were warned, and PED's became illegal, they continued the use. So, even if you can forgive prior use, once the banning took effect, it was clear the use was in violation of the rules. Were their MLB rules agains amphetamines in the 70's and '80's, with punishment guidelines? Were the stats inflated by either side, pitchers or hitters? I like what's going on in the game currently, with hr's way down.

« on: August 6, 2014, 10:18 AM »
Luck and a Little Mystery: The Economy Grows Faster Under Democratic Presidents

Instead, the two economists find they can explain half of that 1.8 percent G.D.P. difference through differences in productivity growth, favorable oil shocks, more favorable international conditions and (slightly) more optimistic consumer confidence.
That’s arguable, of course. One can weave stories about how presidents affect these variables, especially consumer confidence (though I’ve always found consumers’ moods correlate with gasoline prices, so that’s probably connected to oil). I can easily do so myself: George W. Bush contributed to considerable conflict affecting oil supply chains; Mr. Obama has both drawn down that conflict and at least presided over extensive development of domestic energy production And to state the entirely obvious: Presidents themselves will always claim credit for anything good that happens on their watch.

But as difficult as this may be in such partisan times, I wouldn’t push any of this too far. In fact, in a career of data analysis — in which I’ve made thousands of tables and graphs plotting changes over time — I cannot recall one that compared presidential terms. That’s because they are swamped by the business cycle — the booms and busts that are far more obvious and dramatic movers of the economy.

Sure, key themes of my work are that expansive fiscal policy is hugely important in responding to downturns, and investment in public goods has positive, long-term impacts on productivity and growth. But identifying such differences among presidents is impossible. Historically both Democratic and Republicans do a lot of both. Their actions interact with the economy in ways that can’t be untangled. The interstate highway investments of Eisenhower (R) surely contributed to the productivity acceleration enjoyed by Kennedy (D).

So, what should one make of this work?

First, the fact that half of the gap remains unexplained means that this is still largely an open question. There’s lots of variance left to fight over.

Second, while over the broad sweep of history a convincing answer to this question may be unknowable, that’s less the case with the near term. The fact that bad fiscal policy — sharp deficit reduction when the economy was still weak — has hurt the current recovery is knowable and important. Though here, too, there’s ambiguity: The recent austerity is mostly the work of Republicans, but the president has also at times bought into it.

Finally it is glaringly obvious that complex, advanced economies need well-functioning federal governments that can accurately diagnose and prescribe; they need governments that can absorb factual information and respond to threats and opportunities. These requirements hold regardless of the president’s party, and the fact that we do not currently have such a federal government is without doubt what’s most important and most scary.

Wow. Delusional. Production of oil and gas is up on private and state lands, not Federal lands. On Federal lands, or in a place like NYS, with a Dem governor who won't allow it, it's down. If you haven't paid attention, the left, led by the EPA, is trying to stop fracking. You're in denial. I'm never quite sure if you believe what you write, don't understand the issues, or just looking for Dem control by convincing people redistribution the right way, despite the overwhelming evidence against it working. It seems often devoid of facts, and full of little tidbits of info, rather than the bigger picture. Sure, oil and gas production is up under Obama, but despite him, not because of him. Anyone stating otherwise is uninformed or worse, though this writer puts it in a way as if he's joking, which he's not.

Unfortunately, these words amount to nothing more than lip service. Natural gas production on federal lands decreased by an astounding 28 percent from 2009 to 2013 while natural gas production on non-federal lands increased by 33 percent from 2009 to 2013. Actions speak louder than words.

In the age of the internet, facts matter, and the NY Times is not strong in facts. A pitiable shell of a once great paper.

« on: August 6, 2014, 10:00 AM »

Sure, the income inequality is growing. You have a WH policy of low interest rates, which benefits investors and asset holders, and hurts the poor. Duh. How about unleashing the private sector? NYS is still studying fracking as PA gets rich. Montana is also in the Bakken Shale, though no one knows it as their land is Federal land, and they won't permit drilling. So, MT residents have to go to ND to find work.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 245