Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap

• I think the media, instead of attacking Sharpton immediately on his past transgressions, wanted to see if he would become the heir to Jesse Jackson as the predominant leader in the African-American community.
• He gets coverage because he's irreverent and can be amusing without the risk of being taken seriously, like Dean was 12 months ago.
• He apparently has a lifetime pass to appear on Bill Mahrer's HBO show.
• IMO, he doesn't get any meaningful coverage anyway.
• The media assumes he'll be gone after this week.

I don't think he gets much more coverage than Alan Keyes. And if he does, it's because he has a knack for coming up with good lines.

[SlaveNoMore]

According to this Yale professor

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap [*]The media assumes he'll be gone after this week.

I doubt that. He may well stop actively campaigning, but I bet he stays officially in, and shows up at the convention purporting to carry a lot of black votes, and looking to broker those votes for . . . something.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
According to this Yale professor

I understand that the pithy Re: line with a single link are de rigueur 'round these parts, but help a brother out here. Why did I waste 2 minutes of my life reading this?

ETA: To clarify, this link is about Yale buying some property in New Haven. Gripping, but I'm hoping this isn't what you were getting at.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Why did I waste 2 minutes of my life reading this?

Do I have to break out the old Bloom County penguins watching jets comic again?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I understand that the pithy Re: line with a single link are de rigueur 'round these parts, but help a brother out here. Why did I waste 2 minutes of my life reading this?

to save you 30 minutes of voting come november?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I understand that the pithy Re: line with a single link are de rigueur 'round these parts, but help a brother out here. Why did I waste 2 minutes of my life reading this?

ETA: To clarify, this link is about Yale buying some property in New Haven. Gripping, but I'm hoping this isn't what you were getting at.

The article I pull up relates a Yale professor's prediction that Bush will win in November with 56.3% of the vote. Expecting that it was going to be about Yale buying property, I was going to suggest that Slave owe you a drink, but now that you've made me read, I think you ought to buy me one.

With computer modeling like that, it's amazing that the prof is at Yale instead of raking in the big bucks somewhere.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not based on what the director of OMB said yesterday. The statements regarding cutting the deficit in half over the next 4 (5?) years includes this amount, even though it is not a line item in the budget. And for those of you who are concerned with misleading, the fact that the up to $50B number is a contingent liability is highlighted in the budget. We can argue (or agree) as to the contents of the budget, but allegations of intentionally misleading are factually untrue.

The story I posted yesterday quotes the budget as saying that it "does not include expected but undetermined additional costs arising from ongoing military operations in Iraq, extending beyond 2004." What did the Director of OMB say that would change this?

I'm sort of sad I brought the "actively misleading" thing into this, because as SAM notes this raises some particularly sharp hackles around here. My point that it takes a verrry creative accountant to both squint at the numbers and make a 40% decrease or whatever into "reduced by half" and then to fail to acknowledge that the deficit reduction projection is based on ignoring a contingent liability that is apparently estimated to be up to 10% of the deficit number.

To be clear here, sgt: I am not assailing the budget, I am annoyed with the SOTU comment that the admin had a plan to reduce the size of the deficit by half by '09. It has no such thing.

Much of the budget is based on revenue projections that may or may not have any relationship to the revenues the government actually receives. Are you telling me there's no way to make any prediction as to how much it might cost us to administer and reconstruct Iraq in a best case scenario, based on troop levels, expected pullout dates and reconstruction projects yet to be completed? I mean, they could set all of the assumptions in their favor if they wanted to (like they do in the tax revenue projections, for example), but there's got to be a number there.
If there's not, then he shouldn't have made any statement without highlighting that this big number is out there.

Having watched the contortions that private companies undergo in order to avoid making imprecise statements of their own performance, it is interesting to watch the admin head in a different direction. I guess 10b-5 is a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of thing.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't think he gets much more coverage than Alan Keyes. And if he does, it's because he has a knack for coming up with good lines.

The fact that he has not been asked to explain his past is appauling. If David Duke was in the race, do you not think that would be question number 1?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
The article I pull up relates a Yale professor's prediction that Bush will win in November with 56.3% of the vote. Expecting that it was going to be about Yale buying property, I was going to suggest that Slave owe you a drink, but now that you've made me read, I think you ought to buy me one.

Deal. See you there, and I'll buy you a drink the size of your head.

(And Slave, I'll pass the bill on to you for changing the link.)

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The fact that he has not been asked to explain his past is appauling. If David Duke was in the race, do you not think that would be question number 1?

But isn't Duke's present just as bad as, if not worse than, his past? Have you visited his white people web site where he blames Jews for all of his problems (and I think black people as well). I'm not defending Sharpton, the Tawana event was dispicable. But I think of the two, one is still a vile-racist piece of garbage and the other is now just a buffoon who dances on SNL and cracks witty one-liners during debates.

aV

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
The story I posted yesterday quotes the budget as saying that it "does not include expected but undetermined additional costs arising from ongoing military operations in Iraq, extending beyond 2004." What did the Director of OMB say that would change this?

Nothing. That is the point. The fact that the numbers are not included is disclosed, so there is not an attempt to mislead. Ty, here is the writing you requested.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience I'm sort of sad I brought the "actively misleading" thing into this, because as SAM notes this raises some particularly sharp hackles around here. My point that it takes a verrry creative accountant to both squint at the numbers and make a 40% decrease or whatever into "reduced by half" and then to fail to acknowledge that the deficit reduction projection is based on ignoring a contingent liability that is apparently estimated to be up to 10% of the deficit number.

I admit, I haven't looked closely enough to calculate the actual percentage reduction. If it is indeed 40%, they should say that. If it's 46%, I'm comfortable with rounding up. In any event, the budget director said that the percentage reduction will not be materially affected by any additional Iraq spending.

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Having watched the contortions that private companies undergo in order to avoid making imprecise statements of their own performance, it is interesting to watch the admin head in a different direction. I guess 10b-5 is a "do as I say, not as I do" sort of thing.

Funny you should mention this. I have thought about the same thing when it comes to statements made by politicians. I think it would be a great rule.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
But isn't Duke's present just as bad as, if not worse than, his past? Have you visited his white people web site where he blames Jews for all of his problems (and I think black people as well). I'm not defending Sharpton, the Tawana event was dispicable. But I think of the two, one is still a vile-racist piece of garbage and the other is now just a buffoon who dances on SNL and cracks witty one-liners during debates.

aV

They are both vile-racist pieces of shit. I can't draw those present/past fine line distinctions. And you can add Jesse Hymie Town Jackson and Strom Thurman into that mix as well. The point is, someone in the friggin media should be asking the question, they are not, and it's because Al's black.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Club's question related to the distinction between the two: what is it about broadcast TV that subjects it to more stringent rules, esp. when 65% of america has some pay tv service, and 97% of america could have that service? Sure, broadcasters got licenses to broadcast. But that doesn't justify higher standards (or lower standards on cable), which is also regualted by the FCC. If the goal is to protect kids, then any broadcast shoudl be subject to the same rules.

The Red Lion Broadcasting rationale for FCC regulation of content of "airwaves" as a public good is only tenuously connected with the rationale for regulating cable content. I'm not an FCC lawyer, but as I understand it the Red Lion rules are waning as applied to cable; it's just a gradual process.

Why are otherwise intelligent people still debating whether it was intentional or not? Have none of you ever tried to rip off a bodice? The leather was snapped on, sure; but that doesn't explain how JT was able to cleanly rip off the lacy underthings to get at the chewy chocolate center. Bodices have structural wire, people. You can't just pull one cup off, unless it's designed that way.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by sgtclub
They are both vile-racist pieces of shit. I can't draw those present/past fine line distinctions. And you can add Jesse Hymie Town Jackson and Strom Thurman into that mix as well. The point is, someone in the friggin media should be asking the question, they are not, and it's because Al's black.

Sharpton was asked about Tawana on NPR recently. In the last few weeks I believe. He stated, with no hesitation, that he "believed" her. Not much of an answer and obviously ignores the fact that the legal system did not. Do you think if he were a stronger candidate in the race that he would be getting pressed on it more?

aV