IN and MO have some similarities, but in a populist change election, Bayh is a centrist-insider-DLC type, who worked in lobbying and private equity recently, while the Democratic challenger in MO served in Afghanistan and assembles assault weapons while challenging the old-establishment pol (who voted against border security) to show how fast he can assemble a weapon.
Clinton wins with 307 EV and with a plurality, not a majority. of the the popular vote. Republicans retain control of the Senate by one seat (51 seats). I previously believed the Senate would tie, but didn't realize how poorly Bayh was running. Essentially I am predicting vote splitting in New Hampshire, but not Indiana or Missouri.
To add misery, the Rangers were just 2 outs away from winning the World Series in game six in 2011. They were up by two runs and had a 95.9% win expectancy. The Cardinals tied the score, and then in the 10th inning, the Rangers took another two-run lead, which they were unable to hold. Game graph.
I think I agree w/ this, but would offer my own observation that the common language of economics is rooted in micro-economics, which involves simple systems. As macro-economic theories are produced, there are more opportunities for divergence by emphasizing one set of factors over another.
On issues like the minimum wage, on which there is less consensus than on other topics, the basic micro- language remains intact, so that even those economists who don't oppose a minimum wage increase utilize basic micro-economic theory and assume that the increased price of labor will reduce demand for labor at some point, but (a) modest increases have not been shown to increase unemployment (arguing the elasticities); (b) that the jobs lost are the least efficient and thus there is utility in destroying low-paying jobs, which frees up labor for more productive work; or (c) government subsidies, such as the EITC, have already created a market inefficiency that needs to be limited.
You're saying Johnson and Stein together, don't make-up one Ralph Nader (2000)? I'll take the over 3% on that bet, but as a protest vote, so the closer the election, the less desire to protest.
I've been polled several times, and the last time I was asked who i would vote for President, I was given the names of the two major party candidates, suggesting that would be my choice, but the specific question that followed gave me four choices: the R, the D, other, or undecided.
I don't know anything about Virginia. For decades, Illinois Republicans have agreed not to challenge each other's signatures, at least not for statewide races.
That Bush appears to have indicated a willingness to piss on Illinois social norms is an indication that things were more cutthroat than in the past, but ultimately Bush pulled back.
The Illinois ballot was not that much of an issue because Republicans have a gentlemen's agreement not to challenge each other's signatures on statewide ballots. The requirement to get on the ballot in each Congressional district is considered too difficult for a Republican. There were rumors that this year is different and the various campaigns were camped out at the board of elections at the deadline with competing challenges ready to be filed if they were targeted. None filed. If the field had been vetted, we don't know which Republicans would have been hurt or helped the most.
The most interesting part to me was that the Bush team appeared to be ready to challenge the field, but the Illinois Republican establishment reached out to him to dissuade him. Bush probably had the most to gain from challenges, but was apparently unwilling to upset the establishment.
IMHO, the case probably should have been heard in Pendleton and heard by a jury from the eastern half of the state.
In the Hammond trial, the feds filed the criminal complaint in Portland for arson in Harney County, and the judge granted the motion to transfer venue to the Pendleton division. (Motion here) Since the Bundy trial pretty much arose in protest of the Hammond sentence and the occupation of federal land occurred in Harney County, I'm not sure why the Bundy trial was not moved as well. Depends on your judge I guess.
Since the District Court of Oregon has not developed a specific rule mandating which division a criminal case must be filed, the US Attorney gets to pick whichever division is most favorable. For civil suits, the rule is pretty clear: file the suit in the division “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the actions is situated.” Having different venue requirements appears to be a systemic bias towards the prosecutor.
I have no idea; ability to serve would likely be an issue. I don't know if this is normal in Oregon. There is one federal district court for all of Oregon, containing four divisions. A large part of the reason for having divisions is convenience to the parties and jurors, so I tried to find out last night why the case was heard in Portland. I couldn't find anything, but there was a motion to transfer venue away from Portland because of liberal bias, and the judge denied it explaining that the jury will be drawn from the entire state. I'm guessing this is not normal, so what they would do about someone driving hours away might be specific to this case.
The odds are that most of the jury was from the Portland metro though, right?
That sounds right to me. Conspiracy charges seek to penalize secondary actors for the acts of the primary actors based upon providing support or planning. So the government's case reads as if these defendants did not do anything wrong themselves, but they were part of a larger plan that the government argued was to disrupt government. This intent had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, where the defendants said their intent was to protest federal lands policy. Frankly, I think many liberals would normally disagree with the government's case, but for the presence of guns.
The most obvious charge was trespassing, though usually this is a misdemeanor offense. Trespass on national forest lands is a fine or up to six months in jail. In a case involving trespass at a post office, it was $50 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.
I think there are a couple of questions about (a) what exactly is Amazon's main business, is it retail or providing internet services to retailers, and (b) was the capitulation on taxes a means to make it more difficult for new market entrants?
I think a detailed comparison of George W.'s preparations for running for President with Jeb's would be interesting. My impression is that George W had not simply raised money, but obtained support across all of the major players/ interests in the party, including Evangelicals who had distrusted his father. Also, George W. inherited loyalty from those that served his father, so at the very least they didn't oppose the son. His path looks more like Hillary Clinton's with McCain serving the Sanders role for the doubters. There was no significant competition, and the original Bush loyalists from 88-92 are no longer factors.
At one time I would have believed that the purpose of the rule is not to make the baseball players look stupid, but the 'tweener plays like this make that less convincing.
I'm guessing there are a lot of baserunners in Gonzalez' position that would have been flat-out running on what looked as much like a ground ball. If that ball had been allowed to bounce inches shorter in the dirt, many would describe it as a ground ball. Not relevant for the fly-ball rule -- a ground ball is even less a fly ball than a line drive. But there is possibly an alternative universe where a poorer baserunner does not appreciate the risk that what looks like a groundball might be caught, doesn't tag-up, and ends up safe on third.
I don't think the comparison is apt because Trump appears to be prejudging future events, though I think its worth pointing out that Gore, according to Gallup, was always viewed favorably by the American people until the recount:
But why was less recycled? Is it because we've hit limits on our ability to recycle it? For example, we've had reversals in recycling in other areas like used tires because we've exhausted a lot of the opportunities that existed (such as in playground/track pavement) and other regulations have prevented it (fuel source), that means the long-term trend is that landfilling bans will need to be lifted.
I suspect the issue with coal ash is partly due to poor economic recovery from the Great Recession and export of high-sulfur coal to China and other places.
I would trace the split back at least a hundred years to the split btw/ conservationists and preservationists. The conservationist saw American resources as needing to be managed scientifically or they would be destroyed. Their views were utilitarian and optimistic about managing environmental systems as one would manage a business -- and based on the moral of waste not want not.
The preservationist were romantics who could trace their views back to Thoreau, and did not favor "use" of resources and were pessimistic about the man's intentions and capabilities. The highest achievement of the preservationist was the Wilderness Act of 1964, which precluded most uses of the resources other than fishing and hunting, and almost certainly this was two to many uses for some.
In 1909, a dam was proposed in the Yosemite National Park, which conservationist supported as providing better management of water resources for the people of San Francisco and creating a lake that would provide benefits to fish and wildlife, and aesthetic scenery. Muir opposed the dam because his highest aesthetic value was the Hetch Hetchy Valley in its natural state which should be preserved.
Frankly, I don't see the preservationist going away. If they read works by conservationists like Aldo Leopold (who I believe was somewhat of a lapsed hunter), they might appreciate hunters more, as people who "went to the woods . . ., to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and . . learn what it had to teach." But there appear to be more hunters these days, with an hour to spare, who go to the woods to kill something.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “On Accepting The Results – Or Not”
And the word "literal" dies another small death in service of the most influential children's book since Curious George.
On “Election 2016: Last Call for Predictions”
IN and MO have some similarities, but in a populist change election, Bayh is a centrist-insider-DLC type, who worked in lobbying and private equity recently, while the Democratic challenger in MO served in Afghanistan and assembles assault weapons while challenging the old-establishment pol (who voted against border security) to show how fast he can assemble a weapon.
"
Clinton wins with 307 EV and with a plurality, not a majority. of the the popular vote. Republicans retain control of the Senate by one seat (51 seats). I previously believed the Senate would tie, but didn't realize how poorly Bayh was running. Essentially I am predicting vote splitting in New Hampshire, but not Indiana or Missouri.
On “Linky Friday #191: The End Is Nigh”
Is the Man in the Yellow Hat a metaphor for the yellow menace?
Is the target audience for the books no longer under age 5, but intended for undergraduate studies?
On “The World Series Futility Index”
To add misery, the Rangers were just 2 outs away from winning the World Series in game six in 2011. They were up by two runs and had a 95.9% win expectancy. The Cardinals tied the score, and then in the 10th inning, the Rangers took another two-run lead, which they were unable to hold. Game graph.
On “Krugman Channels Rawls in Sympathy for the Free Trade Losers”
I think I agree w/ this, but would offer my own observation that the common language of economics is rooted in micro-economics, which involves simple systems. As macro-economic theories are produced, there are more opportunities for divergence by emphasizing one set of factors over another.
On issues like the minimum wage, on which there is less consensus than on other topics, the basic micro- language remains intact, so that even those economists who don't oppose a minimum wage increase utilize basic micro-economic theory and assume that the increased price of labor will reduce demand for labor at some point, but (a) modest increases have not been shown to increase unemployment (arguing the elasticities); (b) that the jobs lost are the least efficient and thus there is utility in destroying low-paying jobs, which frees up labor for more productive work; or (c) government subsidies, such as the EITC, have already created a market inefficiency that needs to be limited.
On “The Thin Blue Wall”
Shy wives who live in trailers too small to effectively go to another room?
"
You're saying Johnson and Stein together, don't make-up one Ralph Nader (2000)? I'll take the over 3% on that bet, but as a protest vote, so the closer the election, the less desire to protest.
I've been polled several times, and the last time I was asked who i would vote for President, I was given the names of the two major party candidates, suggesting that would be my choice, but the specific question that followed gave me four choices: the R, the D, other, or undecided.
On “GOPocalypse, Part 4: The Longshot”
I don't know anything about Virginia. For decades, Illinois Republicans have agreed not to challenge each other's signatures, at least not for statewide races.
That Bush appears to have indicated a willingness to piss on Illinois social norms is an indication that things were more cutthroat than in the past, but ultimately Bush pulled back.
"
The Illinois ballot was not that much of an issue because Republicans have a gentlemen's agreement not to challenge each other's signatures on statewide ballots. The requirement to get on the ballot in each Congressional district is considered too difficult for a Republican. There were rumors that this year is different and the various campaigns were camped out at the board of elections at the deadline with competing challenges ready to be filed if they were targeted. None filed. If the field had been vetted, we don't know which Republicans would have been hurt or helped the most.
The most interesting part to me was that the Bush team appeared to be ready to challenge the field, but the Illinois Republican establishment reached out to him to dissuade him. Bush probably had the most to gain from challenges, but was apparently unwilling to upset the establishment.
On “Morning Ed: Crime {2016.10.27.Th}”
IMHO, the case probably should have been heard in Pendleton and heard by a jury from the eastern half of the state.
In the Hammond trial, the feds filed the criminal complaint in Portland for arson in Harney County, and the judge granted the motion to transfer venue to the Pendleton division. (Motion here) Since the Bundy trial pretty much arose in protest of the Hammond sentence and the occupation of federal land occurred in Harney County, I'm not sure why the Bundy trial was not moved as well. Depends on your judge I guess.
Since the District Court of Oregon has not developed a specific rule mandating which division a criminal case must be filed, the US Attorney gets to pick whichever division is most favorable. For civil suits, the rule is pretty clear: file the suit in the division “in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the actions is situated.” Having different venue requirements appears to be a systemic bias towards the prosecutor.
"
I don't feel too bad for the lawyer; he's got some great advertising opportunities now.
"
I have no idea; ability to serve would likely be an issue. I don't know if this is normal in Oregon. There is one federal district court for all of Oregon, containing four divisions. A large part of the reason for having divisions is convenience to the parties and jurors, so I tried to find out last night why the case was heard in Portland. I couldn't find anything, but there was a motion to transfer venue away from Portland because of liberal bias, and the judge denied it explaining that the jury will be drawn from the entire state. I'm guessing this is not normal, so what they would do about someone driving hours away might be specific to this case.
The odds are that most of the jury was from the Portland metro though, right?
"
Well, one defense attorney was so awesome that the government tased him.
"
Federal court. The case was heard in Portland, but the jury pool was drawn from the entire state.
"
That sounds right to me. Conspiracy charges seek to penalize secondary actors for the acts of the primary actors based upon providing support or planning. So the government's case reads as if these defendants did not do anything wrong themselves, but they were part of a larger plan that the government argued was to disrupt government. This intent had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, where the defendants said their intent was to protest federal lands policy. Frankly, I think many liberals would normally disagree with the government's case, but for the presence of guns.
"
The most obvious charge was trespassing, though usually this is a misdemeanor offense. Trespass on national forest lands is a fine or up to six months in jail. In a case involving trespass at a post office, it was $50 and/or imprisonment up to 30 days.
On “Morning Ed: Society {2016.10.25.T}”
Isn't the difference that the postman can be issued a key to the main entrance of the apartment building, but not any of the private services?
"
I think there are a couple of questions about (a) what exactly is Amazon's main business, is it retail or providing internet services to retailers, and (b) was the capitulation on taxes a means to make it more difficult for new market entrants?
On “Linky Friday #189: Tattooed Introversion”
Death, you complete me.
On “GOPocalypse, Part 3: The Rightful Heir”
I think a detailed comparison of George W.'s preparations for running for President with Jeb's would be interesting. My impression is that George W had not simply raised money, but obtained support across all of the major players/ interests in the party, including Evangelicals who had distrusted his father. Also, George W. inherited loyalty from those that served his father, so at the very least they didn't oppose the son. His path looks more like Hillary Clinton's with McCain serving the Sanders role for the doubters. There was no significant competition, and the original Bush loyalists from 88-92 are no longer factors.
On “When is an Infield Fly Not an Infield Fly?”
At one time I would have believed that the purpose of the rule is not to make the baseball players look stupid, but the 'tweener plays like this make that less convincing.
I'm guessing there are a lot of baserunners in Gonzalez' position that would have been flat-out running on what looked as much like a ground ball. If that ball had been allowed to bounce inches shorter in the dirt, many would describe it as a ground ball. Not relevant for the fly-ball rule -- a ground ball is even less a fly ball than a line drive. But there is possibly an alternative universe where a poorer baserunner does not appreciate the risk that what looks like a groundball might be caught, doesn't tag-up, and ends up safe on third.
On “Morning Ed: Food {2016.10.19.W}”
I don't think the comparison is apt because Trump appears to be prejudging future events, though I think its worth pointing out that Gore, according to Gallup, was always viewed favorably by the American people until the recount:
11/4-5/2000 56% favorabile / 39% unfavorable
11/7/2000 Election Day
11/13-15/2000 53% favorable/ 44% unfavorable
12/2-4/2000 46% favorable/ 52% unfavorable
IOW, if you believe they are comparable, its not as if the public liked how Gore handled the post-election issues.
On “Morning Ed: The Planet {2016.10.19.W}”
But why was less recycled? Is it because we've hit limits on our ability to recycle it? For example, we've had reversals in recycling in other areas like used tires because we've exhausted a lot of the opportunities that existed (such as in playground/track pavement) and other regulations have prevented it (fuel source), that means the long-term trend is that landfilling bans will need to be lifted.
I suspect the issue with coal ash is partly due to poor economic recovery from the Great Recession and export of high-sulfur coal to China and other places.
On “The End of Dissent: A Study in Group Radicalization”
I would trace the split back at least a hundred years to the split btw/ conservationists and preservationists. The conservationist saw American resources as needing to be managed scientifically or they would be destroyed. Their views were utilitarian and optimistic about managing environmental systems as one would manage a business -- and based on the moral of waste not want not.
The preservationist were romantics who could trace their views back to Thoreau, and did not favor "use" of resources and were pessimistic about the man's intentions and capabilities. The highest achievement of the preservationist was the Wilderness Act of 1964, which precluded most uses of the resources other than fishing and hunting, and almost certainly this was two to many uses for some.
In 1909, a dam was proposed in the Yosemite National Park, which conservationist supported as providing better management of water resources for the people of San Francisco and creating a lake that would provide benefits to fish and wildlife, and aesthetic scenery. Muir opposed the dam because his highest aesthetic value was the Hetch Hetchy Valley in its natural state which should be preserved.
Frankly, I don't see the preservationist going away. If they read works by conservationists like Aldo Leopold (who I believe was somewhat of a lapsed hunter), they might appreciate hunters more, as people who "went to the woods . . ., to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and . . learn what it had to teach." But there appear to be more hunters these days, with an hour to spare, who go to the woods to kill something.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.