2. Democrats always screw you twice. First by working their will on you and second by delivering a lot less than they promised they would. The women in the story are complaining about this but that’s because they’re foreigners and don’t understand that this is actually standard Democrat operating procedure in this country. Just ask the workers trying to collect their government pensions in California. Indeed, Senator Bob’s approach to sex could even be considered the Democrat’s central philosophy: “You will bend over for us and in return we will promise to give you money and stuff… and then will give you a lot less than we promised.” If that were short enough to put on a campaign sign, people would be waving it at Obama’s campaign stops. Instead it’s just been shortened to “Forward!” Because “Over!” didn’t sound quite right.
3. It’s Democrat, not Republican, programs that send jobs out of the country. I mean, come on, are you going to tell me there are no prostitutes in America who can be screwed and then screwed again? There are plenty of them!
Maybe not when it comes to Bob Menendez. Perhaps he was offshoring because Dominiquenas were just doing the jobs that Americans won’t do.
…one can think that Silver is probably right about the Electoral College, and simultaneously think that the 78.4 percent number is basically meaningless. Or rather, that it is impossible to formulate the epistemological difference between “There is a 78.4 percent chance that Obama will win” and “There is a pretty good chance Obama will win.”
My problem with it is that I don’t believe that he knows all of his data inputs to three figures. Yes, I know that’s how the polls purport to measure them, but three figures of precision are meaningless unless you also believe that the number is accurate. As another plug for my (still to be published) space safety book, here’s a relevant excerpt:
One of the very first things that scientists and engineers are taught is that you can’t get an answer more precise than the precision of the least precise factor from which it is derived. For example, we know the gravitational constant to many places, but when you multiply it by a mass that you only know to two places, that is the maximum precision that can be reasonably used to express the local gravitational field for that body. A good professor will mark down an answer on a student’s test that, while accurate, is unjustifiably precise. When I see engineers doing the same thing, I tend to think that they’re trying to impress the innumerate who don’t understand the difference between precision and accuracy. And I think that the safety numbers for Ares I were precisely wrong.
As is Nate’s election prediction. To me, it would be more credible if he just said 80%, though I still don’t buy it.
Another popular bumper sticker consists of the word “Coexist” formed out of traditional iconic symbols: a crescent, a cross, a tao, a star of David, etc. It’s a pleasant enough sentiment, and it allows liberals to think they’re somehow above the fray when it comes to the ongoing struggle between the post-Enlightenment West and totalitarian Islam. Except if you’re imagining a world of peaceful coexistence, you’re not taking a neutral position. You’re coming down on the side of the West. Liberals are in the thick of the war; they just don’t have the stomach to accept it. Their aspirations for peace — a peace in which individuals are free to act according to the dictates of their own consciences — place them squarely on the side of heterogeneity over unity of belief, of personal autonomy over selfless obedience, of reason over faith. Radical Islam is at war with everything liberals hold dear. Liberals just don’t want to get their fingernails dirty.
As he notes earlier, they’re not really liberals — they just imagine they are.
Of course, conservatives have bumper stickers, too, but they tend not to as much, because it’s an often apparently invitation to get their car keyed. By those “liberals” who preach civility.
Whoever made it, the Mussolini/Fascist/dictator vibe is undeniable. And even if you were entirely unfamiliar with the famous Mussolini scowl replicated in the 2012 campaign sign, why would any Democrat voter find this particular Obama portrait appealing or impressive? It reeks of Big Brother-ish totalitarianism all on its own, even without an historical precedent. Why depict your lovable candidate as a menacing, frowning tyrant?
Could this be the progressives’ secret love of totalitarianism peeking through once again? Many have already demonstrated the progressive/totalitarian connection. In fact, our own Ed Driscoll previously noted back in the 2008 campaign some extremely disturbing graphic parallels between Obama campaign/cult posters and those of earlier, uh, shall we say movements.
If you are a progressive reading this, you likely imagine yourself the polar opposite of the Fascists, but I ask you to stop and ponder a moment how you, your belief system and your behavior are viewed by others. When we see people demanding greater government power and expressing unquestioned devotion to a charismatic leader, we think “incipient totalitarianism.” You only exacerbate that impression by imitating the very design philosophy of previous totalitarian movements.
Are you sure you’re on the right side of history?
It’s an old theme, from when we first were exposed to The One, but some things haven’t changed in four years, except that more people are seeing it, finally.
As is always the case, the economically ignorant trot out the broken window fallacy. And you can bet that there will also be idiotic complaints about “price gouging” in the coming days. I dealt with that one years ago.
…more price gouging would greatly improve inventory management. There is a large class of goods—flashlights, snow shovels, sand bags—for which demand is highly irregular. Maintaining large inventories of these items is, on most days, a costly misuse of storage space. If retailers can earn windfall profits when demand for them spikes, that creates a situation in which it makes financial sense to keep them on hand. Trying to curtail price gouging does the reverse.
None of which is to say that people should be greedy all the time. Disasters really are times when people pull together and we see large and small acts of kindness that rightly inspire us. But consider that declining to raise prices in the face of spiking demand and inelastic supply is a very odd form of charity: It doesn’t create any new resources, just allocates them arbitrarily to whoever shows up first. If you feel bad about the idea of earning windfall profits off the misfortunes of others, then donate the money to charity. If that seems too impersonal, give your employees a bonus for showing up under difficult circumstances. But storm or no storm, the best practice is to try to set prices that balance supply with demand. State governments shouldn’t be trying to stop you.