Walker spokesperson Laurel Patrick says the changes to the UW mission were a "drafting error."
The most galling change of course is the one the article barely mentions: the insertion of "to meet the state's workforce needs."
Also potentially galling to some around here:
"The focus would be honed in, in particular to look at making sure that we prepare individuals in this state ... for the jobs and opportunities that are available in the state," Walker said, according to Wisconsin Radio Network.
And a symbolically potent university system to attack. Charles Pierce with a righteous rant on it putting it into the context of the Wisconsin Idea and its role in progressive movement.
Kind of cute that the drafter took this opportunity to update the text with serial commas while accidentally deleting commitments to improving the human condition and the search for truth.
I kind of enjoyed the sheer pettiness of:
The budget bill removes the text specifying that the UW System is created "in the public interest" from the statute. In the new wording, it is established out of "constitutional obligation."
I always put serial commas into drafts of articles. I'm not sure if it is appreciated or not, but I keep at it.
The University of Wisconsin has been an amazingly strong public research institution--it put the WARF in warfarin--and it would be a major disaster if the state government manages to gut it. So now I feel kind of guilty that half of my reaction to this is feeling vindicated for what most people I know think was my very stupid decision to not take a job there a few years ago.
Eh, you would have been fine personally, essear, but it would have been tough to be there during the gutting and skinning process. That kind of butchery is very hard on morale. Also, Madison is a frozen hellscape 11.5 months of the year.
A friend there just a HUGE raise. Recognizing that this shit was coming, they've been preemptively trying to hold on to their best people. It will work in his case, but I expect they're still going to start hemorrhaging talent.
But it's not a depressing frozen hellscape the way, say, Michigan is, because it's often sunny and hellish, instead of dreary and hellish for months on end.
I don't think replacing Gary Andersen with Paul Chryst is as bad as all that.
This is who he is, knecht. He has a special animus toward educators, especially educators in Madison, and he's built his career on the spectacle of him drinking wine from the skulls of his fallen enemies. He's a thinner version of Chris Christie: petty, vindictive, thin-skinned. Except in Walker's case, he's totally -- rather than just mostly -- bought and paid for by the Koch brothers/ALEC.
I remember hearing about politicians like Jesse Helms who were philosophically opposed to the concept of public universities, but I thought it was motivated by cultural issues. Apparently it's also part of their economic beliefs.
Having been a grad student in Madison through several rounds of similar butchery (you may remember me from such past delurkings as: That Thread About The Madison Protests), I feel pretty OK about finally leaving town with this crap happening again.
Especially as my destination features like 11.8 frozen-hellscape months a year.
12: I found it depressing as fuck. The temperature can hover at just above zero for months at a time. So yes, sure, it's typically sunnier than Ann Arbor*, but so the fuck what? You still can't go outside for more than half the year.
* America's most overrated college town.
||
Heebie heebie- can we have a DC meetup thread? Tomorrow night (Friday), time somewhere around 7-8, location somewhere metro center/convention center area. Vague details because we don't have a thread to discuss such things!
(This does not fall under the 40 comment rule because it is asking for a new thread rather than hijacking this one)
|>
Maybe it's only Milwaukee, but I am reliably informed that if you order a Bloody Mary in Wisconsin, it comes with a sausage.
So yes, sure, it's typically sunnier than Ann Arbor*, but so the fuck what?
So Ann Arbor wins for worst! Go Blue.
Has it been noted that Walker is one of two current governors that never got a college degree?
22: I actually didn't know that. Seems like an easy target for a low blow. I wonder if any of the other candidates will have the guts.
Also, Walker dropped out of Marquette a year shy of his degree because he had to work, right? I think it's a story -- true or not -- that works in a populist moment. Regardless, he's not going to be the nominee, so I'm not sure it matters.
My dad dropped out of Marquette. It seemed to work for him.
I think Jeb will be the nominee and it will be a closer race than it should be, but HRC will still win.
You still can't go outside for more than half the year.
Not true!
If you actually do things outside regularly you adapt to the cold way faster than you'd expect.
I think Jeb will be the nominee -- especially now that Mitt isn't running -- and I'd say it's even money that he wins. TUZLA! TUZLA! TUZLA! No kidding, other than a few conversations here and not being able to avoid people's posts on facebook, I plan to pay absolutely no attention to the election. It's going to be too horrible to bear.
Regardless, he's not going to be the nominee,
Why not? Do you think Jeb has it in the bag, or do you think he's fatally flawed? I haven't thought too hard - and we're pretty far away - but ISTM that he's less flawed than any other non-Jeb candidate, and I'm not the least bit convinced that Jeb will win.
Anyway, if 25.1 is correct, then I agree there's no attack to be made.
So, people who know more about American politics than me: What are Walker's odds of becoming the Republican nominee?
I guess this is why one hits refresh before posting.
If you actually do things outside regularly you adapt to the cold way faster than you'd expect.
Nonsense. I lived there for four years. I spent lots of time outside every single day -- biking to class, crew practice (not on the water, but running and other dry-land stuff), and stumbling home from bars -- and I never adapted.
If we continue the present economic trajectory for another 5 quarters, I'm pretty sure Keith Ellison could beat Jeb.
But that's a big IF.
You still can't go outside for more than half the year.
Not true!
If you actually do things outside regularly you adapt to the cold way faster than you'd expect.
I don't feel nearly as chilled as I used to taking off my clothes in a 45 degree room.
30: I actually think he and Jeb are the most likely nominees (now that Mitt is out and Ryan says he doesn't want to run -- though it's possible that either one is hoping to be drafted). Anyway, I'd say that Jeb is more likely to get the nod, because he's the establishment candidate, but it probably depends how much of the $1 billion they've allocated for campaign spending the Kochs devote to Walker. Mostly, though, I just can't bring myself to care very much. I have no control over anything that happens in American politics, and even less control over what happens in the GOP primaries, so it doesn't make sense for me to devote much time or energy to thinking about such things. My name is Von, and I'm an addict.
31: Kevin Drum picked him to win, and he has a good track record.
Hedonic adaptation is amazing. I'm much less cold in the winter in places that get cold and stay that way than in places where the weather warms then cools then warms then cools all winter. And the reverse is true in the summer. When it's brutally hot all the time, you just sort of get used to it. But in places that shift frequently between pleasant days and too-hot days, the too-hot days are extra miserable.
40, Is "Hedonic" the right word? Maybe just "Perceptual adaptation".
38
Yeah. From what little I know about either, it seems Jeb is a better candidate than Walker, but I can't see how his brother's deplorable presidency won't be giant albatross for his campaign.
We shouldn't let treadmills hog the adjective "hedonic."
Maybe that's not technically hedonic adaption but it feels like it's related to the same phenomenon.
Or at least is an unrelated but parallel phenomenon.
42 is what I always thought. If it isn't true, wait a few months before letting me know.
40
That reasoning is why a lot of people here don't use any climate control methods at all.
I have noticed I'm hungry all the time and losing weight. Maybe I should write a best-selling diet book.
So how long until they make it legal to just buy votes directly? Why waste time with all this media, GOTV, crap?
I don't think it's hedonic so much as directly physiological. I can tell that my hands stay warmer a lot longer in winter than they used to (meaning: pretty much at all). I used to feel cold air burning my lungs when breathing deeply outside during the really extreme cold and that hasn't happened to me in years. During one particularly bad winter I remember being able to feel my body heat without actually touching my skin (up to around two inches away or so).
The idea that your metabolism could change based on the temperatures around you doesn't seem weird to me, anyway. But you have to actually be exposed to the cold for moderate periods of time - not just in and out like a lot of people try to do.
Honestly, I think direct vote buying would work better than what we have now.
49
When I was a kid my grandmother would insist we eat really heroic amounts of butter in the winter, telling us that if we didn't get enough fat we could actually die from starvation as a result of the cold. It seemed like an Old World custom that didn't transfer all that well to bourgeois late 20th-century life in the PNW.
Does the word "hedonic" imply that something is purely psychological? I thought it just implied the experience of pleasant/unpleasant sensations, including directly physiological sensations.
We'll see who really wants it by how they go after JEB over immigration.
The other night I have garlic parmesan chicken wings. They had so much butter. The first one was the best thing I ever ate. The last one was hard to get down.
Mostly, though, I just can't bring myself to care very much. I have no control over anything that happens in American politics, and even less control over what happens in the GOP primaries, so it doesn't make sense for me to devote much time or energy to thinking about such things.
I don't know how to achieve this.
From what little I know about either, it seems Jeb is a better candidate than Walker, but I can't see how his brother's deplorable presidency won't be giant albatross for his campaign.
People who think W went down in history as deplorable were never going to vote Republican, no matter what, and no one else can remember that long ago.
Barring illness or Bill getting busted for having a sex slave (both of which are, unfortunately, real possibilities), Hilary Clinton is going to easily beat whoever the republican nominee is. The presidential electorate is really tough for Republicans, and they have no interest in actually making any of the changes they'd need to make to be competitive against a strong democratic candidate in a presidential election.
I don't think the "slave" part of "sex slave" is fair to Bill.
To be more precise, him getting busted for screwing Jeffrey Epstein's underage sex slave. So the "slave" wasn't the unfair part, but the "having" was.
That would implode the universe around Ken Starr.
Who was Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, to be overly clear.
Oh wow, I hadn't known that.
Then I guess the "overly" wasn't needed.
56: Some of those that consider W deplorable, do so because they believe he sold out the conservative cause. Those people are probably voting Republican.
52 -
'Hedonic' means related to pleasure specifically, and I'm not sure if the actual causes of it are important. So I would interpret it as having more to do with being used to cold or heat so that it doesn't feel as unpleasant. But what I was saying was that you adapt to it in a directly physiological way - your body literally responds differently to it and the things that feel unpleasant about cold just don't happen (as much/as soon/etc.). It's one thing not to mind the sensation of freezing air going down into your chest, and another thing to have your body warm it up faster/produce more protective phlegm/whatever so that it just doesn't happen at all.
They might stay home in an election. Like all the Central PA Republicans who stayed home rather than vote for the man who didn't stop them from firing Paterno.
66: Right -- but they will vote in the primaries -- for someone other than Jeb Bush.
65: I got what you were saying, and I don't disagree, it probably is at least in part a physiological response. I'm not sure I am comfortable drawing quite so bright a line between "directly physiological" adaptions and psychological adaptions, but I do understand the distinction that you are drawing.
61, 62: Who [Ken Starr] was Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer, to be overly clear.
Hmm, Ken Starr who within the past year or so wrote a letter in support of a teacher at his kids' former school who was convicted on sexual abuse charges.
57 -- Bush is showing every sign of understanding the challenges of the general, and his recent discussion of how Republicans need to focus on helping the poor -- reported by the stenographic flatterers at Politico -- shows this. He's not going to simply get away with it, but with enough wind (ie media) at his back, and some real money, he does, I think, have some shot.
He would win every state won by Romney, could end up with Florida, and might also be able to make some decent plays in a few other states.
If you believe the Epstein case allegations (which I choose to do, because it makes Dershowitz look bad) Bill Clinton was just around the underage sex slaves, but never partook.
27 et seq: [on Repub candidate speculation]
&
on preview, 70: but with enough wind (ie media) at his back,
Holy fucking tire swing, what cornucopia of fuckedupedness are the fucking fuck-cunt goobers of the beltway media going to unleash on us this time?
"While Clinton and others joust with the press, Jeb Bush embraces it" (WaPo).
Jeb Bush is setting the pace for press access in the 2016 campaign. And as political reporters, we love this.
...
In the last 24 hours, Bush e-mailed a comment to a New York Times reporter for a profile of one of his top aides. He gave an interview to the National Journal. After his speech in Detroit, he also took questions from reporters and appeared quite comfortable in doing so. [JPS-- Really?]
...
Ana Navarro @ananavarro tweet:
Many reporters who r in Detroit today ran into @JebBush. He's chatted/answered their questions. Now compare that to Hillary & her entourage.
...
Bush also knows that his campaign will be, in many ways, compared to the presidencies of his father and brother. By talking more with the press, he's showing his own personal brand and hoping to prove he's not just another Bush. He's saying, 'I know this nomination isn't my birthright."
his own personal brand
Does anybody who isn't an awful human being use that phrase to mean anything except the smell of their own farts?
I'm going to tell Jonathan Chait about you.
72: Oh lord, I cannot take another Villager crush on a Republican presidential candidate. The only joy of 2012 was how much they detested Romney.
Re the Buttercup diet/grandma's wisdom: IIRC being bloody cold is the only thing that actually does preferentially burn off body fat. (Antarctic explorers eating butter as a snack etc). Also related, rabbit starvation.
I'm convinced that when people hunch their shoulders and draw into themselves in response to the cold are unknowingly telling their bodies to conserve energy and slow their metabolism. Whenever I notice myself doing this and relax, taking note of the temperature but not responding, I feel much better, less chilly. I even have a bullshit fitness display evolutionary justification for this.
71: High profile public disgrace of Alan Dershowitz would be about the only upside to the Epstein case. But a substantial one, for sure.
76 -- Disengage now. It's your only hope.
The fact that Dershowitz used to employ toxic Twitter presence/professional troll Char/les C John/son as his research assistant was a little too on the nose for me; I expect the universe to bury the punchlines a little deeper.
Holy fucking tire swing, what cornucopia of fuckedupedness are the fucking fuck-cunt goobers of the beltway media going to unleash on us this time?
Angry Stormcrow is funny.
. Whenever I notice myself doing this and relax, taking note of the temperature but not responding, I feel much better, less chilly. I even have a bullshit fitness display evolutionary justification for this.
Which is what?
when people hunch their shoulders and draw into themselves in response to the cold
This is also a pretty common physiological response to significant hunger, right?
||
The law school cafeteria here today had the Hot Brown as its sandwich special. It was... not so good. I'm not a big fan of the sandwich but I feel offended on behalf of Kentucky.
|>
-today, +today somewhere else. Word order weird some reason for is.
Barring illness or Bill getting busted for having a sex slave (both of which are, unfortunately, real possibilities), Hilary Clinton is going to easily beat whoever the republican nominee is.
Don't discount the possibility of the economy falling to shit, again, and the electorate taking it out on Democrats. The current expansion - though it has been slow and shitty and has had a lot of ground to make up - has been going on for a while now. There's a pretty good chance the business cycle will decide to take a dive sometime around 2016.
83: That it's a bullshit fitness display, of course. I'm such a good specimen that I have calories to burn!
84: Huh, I wasn't aware of this bit of CONFIRMING EVIDENCE.
Rove was obviously, comically wrong about 2012, but at this remove, Ohio isn't really totally out of reach, and, depending on all sorts of things, neither are Colorado, Iowa, or Virginia. It'll be about turnout, and whether Clinton can inspire it. I think she can, but I also think that the Village will be as big a problem as it was in 2000.
HRC will not be the nominee;the blood clots will do it. But ego will keep her in the race until her body forces her out, and the Party will be completely devastated and demoralized. Why did we let this happen?
The Democrats have a terrible bench:Jerry Brown? Biden/Warren? Long list of folks in 60s and 70s, nobody in 40s and 50s. Maybe Booker. But rightcoasters cannot win anymore. Dems have long had better luck with midwesterners or Californians.
Republicans could still lose the general even with HRC out, but Jeb would be strong. Walker would have better chances than we think.
And economy tanks and we lose some wars. Add a natural disaster and blaming Democrats when SCOTUS scuttles ACA, and I am now giving Repubs 75% chance of owning four branches in 2017.
I wouldn't discount the possibility of the Supreme Court really fucking Obamacare up and then the republicans running a full court press on how democrats can't be trusted to write and pass laws and how things are worse off* as a result of it all and so on.
*I mean, they still wouldn't be but that's not likely to stop them or to stop the press from spending the entire campaign repeating it without any pushback.
Bob is jumping the gun on the RNC campaign ads.
93: He's right about the age thing though. Our supposed best candidates are too damn old.
||
I have 9 students in college algebra. 4 girls have turned in all the online assignments and gotten As. You can redo a problem until you get it right. 4 boys have not turned in any assignment, although I can see that they've registered with the website. 1 boy has turned in 1 assignment, on which he earned a 17%.
I don't even know.
|>
Long list of folks in 60s and 70s, nobody in 40s and 50s.
Kirsten Gillibrand, Martin O'Malley. I don't love either one, but either one could be viable. James Webb would be Gillibrand's VP selection. O'Malley might go with Julian Castro.
96: I dunno, going purely by the name and picture, a Vermin Supreme candidacy could be pretty exciting.
93: Also apparently inventing a new branch of government.
I really don't know what to say about 95. That's a pretty stark difference, although with only 9 kids it's sort of a small sample. (The statisticians may tell me that's wrong.) If the genders of every person involved were switched, I think it would be treated as something the teacher was doing wrong. (Not trying to suggest that's actually the case in your situation, just musing aloud.)
98.2- The media? Counting each house of Congress separately? A majority of state governors? The Senate parliamentarian?
Tell them they have to complete the next assignment by writing it with a penis dipped in ink.
I would also support Vermin Supreme, if only for the Supreme/Castro* 2016! bumper stickers.
*Or whatever.
100: I'm hoping it's the secret committee from which Obama gets his orders to nuke Fukushima or switch parties upon reelection, but yeah, it's probably counting each house of Congress separately.
96 -- I'm not surprised to see our former Gov on that list, although he's not actually going to run. Our current Gov, though, is just crazy talk. He's a good guy, and I like him alot, but he's ot doing anything at all that would give him a national profile, and the idea that he'd want to run around begging for national money etc rather than run for re-election -- that's just too many Villagers with too much of a content hole to fill.
If Clinton had dropped out early, and Romney had stayed in, we could have Kerry v. Romney. I was right. No, I was right!
96: You're not excited by the George Clooney campaign?
It's okay. We'll still control the Sharia courts.
100, 103 -- Remember, as the last guy showed, the VP's office is a branch unto itself.
105: I don't know I read in the supermarket the other day that his marriage is already in trouble.
Why won't people realize that Sherrod Brown is the party's one true savior? Why?!!!?
GOP Builds Full-Scale Replica Of Struggling Ohio Town To Train Presidential Hopefuls:
"It took me a while, but I've become pretty comfortable serving meals at the homeless shelter portion of the course," said former Florida governor Jeb Bush, who has reportedly been extremely committed to the training program, oftentimes returning late at night to put in extra effort posing confidently yet casually in photo ops with the facility's fake eighth-grade civics class and with the actors playing the staff of Stocktonville's artificial mom-and-pop store. "But when I drive over to the VA hospital to talk with veterans, I always screw up my one-on-one with the guy playing a young soldier back from Afghanistan who is going through his physical therapy session. I know I'm supposed to start by putting my hand on the veteran's shoulder and saying 'Thank you for serving our country,' but I never know when to say how he exemplifies the best qualities of America."
I'm torn on Franken as a candidate, because the press might become entirely unbearable. But on the other hand they would really hate it if he won and that would be nice to see. I doubt it would turn out well though.
108: Doesn't the butcher get mad if you practice ossomancy before you bring the sheep bones home?
I'm holding out hope for a Warren/Franken ticket.
Warren needs to find a running mate with last name "Terra" or something homophonous.
I thought the fitness display in 78, 83, and 89 was going to be "I relax my shoulders to show off my hard nipples."
95, 99: If the genders of every person involved were switched, I think it would be treated as something the teacher was doing wrong.
Heebie, do not attempt gender switch surgery on your students. At least not until you get IRB approval.
109: As with Obama, I'd be significantly happier to be able to vote for his wife but she's smart enough not to ever make that an option.
Lyndon LaRouche has campaign experience.
99: Or some odd versíon of stereotype threat/escape, esp as these are all students with math angst going in.
As with Obama, I'd be significantly happier to be able to vote for his wife but she's smart enough not to ever make that an option.
Are we still talking about Clooney?
111, 113: Obligatory quote from the Franken book in question. The fact that you can publish this paragraph under your name and still win a US Senate race gives me a modicum of faith in our political system.
Took an unusually satisfying shit this morning. It was very large and smooth and shaped like a question mark, even with little dot on the bottom. Tried to take Polaroid but no film left over from shoot with T. Went down the hall to get O and Dan [Dan Haggerty from Grizzly Adams - JPS] but they had just gone to sleep and didn't want to come see shit. Also got some sort of memo from N [Norm Ornstein - JPS]. Looks interesting. Tried to save shit but question mark shape started to deteriorate by lunchtime. Also had to take another shit then. So everybody will just have to take my word for it.
125: No, but we could be! I should try to think about politicians whose wives aren't better than they are. Even Mitch McConnell is more like a toss-up.
Link in 124 is good. It's always amazing how the press deems the GOP bench "deep", then once the primary debates happen, they act surprised that there's basically one viable candidate in the entire group, and he's deeply flawed (McCain=Grumpy Grampa, Romney=G.I.Luvmoney, Jeb=Bush, Walker=unindicted co-conspirator, Perry=indicted co-conspirator).
And of course hardly anyone would have looked at Bill Clinton in 1990 and thought, "That man is clearly the future of the Democratic Party."
And speaking of Franken, here he is just now in my Twitter feed:
It cost $1.37 billion, but Standard & Poor's has finally appeared to close the darkest chapter in its 150-year history as a rating agency.
Yet that payout announced on Tuesday, which will settle an array of government lawsuits that accused S.&P. of inflating the ratings of subprime mortgage investments, does not represent closure for the broader ratings business. An uncertain future still lies ahead for S.&P. as well as for its main rivals, Moody's and Fitch.
95: I think I mentioned this in an earlier thread, but back in the early 90s when I was in college, there really didn't seem to be a strong gender bias in the distribution of natural geniuses, earnest strivers, "gentleman's C" slackers, stoners, party animals & etc.
Now it sounds like, at least at the undergraduate level*, the distribution is becoming starkly gendered, but I'm never sure whether I'm being biased because the media loves to talk about the "boy crisis" or whatever.
*These days I teach mostly professional students and earnest strivers are heavily overrepresented among all genders.
but back in the early 90s when I was in college, there really didn't seem to be a strong gender bias in the distribution of natural geniuses, earnest strivers, "gentleman's C" slackers, stoners, party animals & etc.
Would you have known if there was? In this class, all the kids are about equally well-matched, and I have them solve problems with each other all the time in class, so they'd all have the impression that they're doing equally well.
I was thinking the other day about how unqualified I am to talk about the Republican primaries, because I know almost no Republicans and literally don't understand, at all, where they could be coming from. I mean I know a couple people from law school who are active Republicans and then a few lawyers and others here who are kinda closet Republicans but never talk about their politics in public and ... that's it. So everything else comes from the media, and a lot of the media I consume (looking at you, Talking Points Memo) seems to consist largely of cherry-picking the most batshit insane of the batshit insane Republican positions. So other than trafficking in broad stereotypes I really have no idea why Jeb Bush or Scott Walker or whichever other one of these chumps would or would not be appealing in a primary.*
*for some reason I told my daughter once about Herman Cain's "999 plan" and now whenever any election comes up in conversation she wants to know if the "999 guy" is involved.
a lot of the media I consume (looking at you, Talking Points Memo) seems to consist largely of cherry-picking the most batshit insane of the batshit insane Republican positions
You know, I think that sometimes, and then I go to my grandmother's house and listen to her conversations with my aunt and they're at least as bad as anything you would see on TPM.
Would you have known if there was?
From just observing as a student, I suppose I could have been misled, but I was also a TA as both an undergraduate and graduate student, which I think gives a somewhat more bird's eye view of how the class as a whole is doing.
I just keep encountering anecdotes from academics who teach undergraduates in which the male students specifically seem to have an extreme "fuck it" attitude, manifesting as not showing up, not bothering to turn things in, turning things in in an incredibly half-assed state & etc.
I just don't recall that being so skewed gender wise, but I suppose I could be misremembering.
133: Right, my barber, inexplicably, often has Fox News on (the guy came over from Italy as a teen, has been working as a barber ever since, must be almost 50 years now). I'm pretty sure he doesn't buy that shit, and other customers occasionally mock the Fox line, but the bottom line is that what they're selling (and therefore what their audience is mostly buying) is complete batshit nonsense.
The reason their candidates keep saying nutty things is that there's more or less nothing too outrageous to say on Fox, and that's all their base (and elected officials) pay attention to. Akin probably hasn't been around anyone who wouldn't nod along at hearing "legitimate rape" in years. Imagine an entire national party populated by the cast of Portlandia, or the residents of the most insular college town you can imagine. That's today's GOP.
or some reason I told my daughter once about Herman Cain'
Fun trivia you can tell her. His youmger brother's (only sibling) name is Thurman Cain.
Imagine an entire national party populated by the cast of Portlandia, or the residents of the most insular college town you can imagine. That's today's GOP.
Except that they're a substantial fraction of the US population.
134: My impression is that the ratio was never 50-50 (which is natural: you'd expect the privileged class to include more slackers). I can't speak to whether it's changed; among other things, I definitely hung out with the slackers, so I could reel off a bunch of slackers, some of whom slacked themselves right out of college (last I heard, he was a brewmaster somewhere in the Canadian Rockies).
134: My impression is that the ratio was never 50-50 (which is natural: you'd expect the privileged class to include more slackers). I can't speak to whether it's changed; among other things, I definitely hung out with the slackers, so I could reel off a bunch of slackers, some of whom slacked themselves right out of college (last I heard, he was a brewmaster somewhere in the Canadian Rockies).
Dammit.
137: Well right. I think the true believers are a pretty small percentage, but there's a huge chunk of enablers who don't partake of the batshit, but when they hear the batshit are unwilling to vote D rather than vote batshit.
Part of me thinks that, disliked as HRC is, she'll draw a lot more GOP moderates than BHO can, because Muslim Kenyan, but I suspect that reduced African-American turnout* will nearly cancel that effect out.
*just because the voting rates in '08 and '12 seem impossible to match. I don't think she'll do a LOT worse, but some worse seem inevitable.
she'll draw a lot more GOP moderates than BHO can, because Muslim Kenyan
I'm confused. You think GOP moderates stayed away from BHO because they were worried he might really be a Muslim Kenyan? Or did you just mean "because GOP moderates are closet racists"? Because if the latter, personally I'm not sure that GOP moderates are more racist than they are sexist. (I'm also not sure I have any idea what a "GOP moderate" even is anymore, so there's that.)
My gut says they're more racist than sexist but I don't have any specific evidence either way.
My gut says they're more racist than sexist but I don't have any specific evidence either way.
Well, in support of your thesis: there are certainly a lot more Republican women than Republican African Americans.
Having been through this for several election cycles, I think it's safest, morale-wise, to go with CCarp and assume a Bush victory. Republican control of Congress, SCOTUS replacements to the right of Alito, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria. Meanwhile media outlets like TPM can keep running the wishful-thinking pieces about how some Republic move or other dooms the party, and Democratic voters can continue not to turn out and just whine instead.
But! I really do think there are a very large number of GOP voters who would be deeply uncomfortable with a woman being the commander in chief of the armed forces. I guess I have no way to judge whether those people are republican "moderates" or not.
I just keep encountering anecdotes from academics who teach undergraduates in which the male students specifically seem to have an extreme "fuck it" attitude, manifesting as not showing up, not bothering to turn things in, turning things in in an incredibly half-assed state & etc.
I wonder if there's any research on whether outcomes for this type of behavior are different (better?) for male than female students. Depends what you measure, but if we say income, life stability, overall happiness... I wonder if there's a difference and if it actually is higher-risk for girls to blow off schoolwork, or vice versa.
On the OP, I have a magical internal filter that prevents me from seeing, hearing, or thinking anything about Scott Walker. It is very, very effective. This post might not even have been about Scott Walker. Who knows?!
I've had very few students with a "fuck it" attitude but they were all males. I have too many female students who won't speak up when they know something and won't ask questions when they're confused, and too many male students who are cocky. It annoys me that they're conforming so well to stereotypes.
I really wouldn't be surprised if education of boys and unemployment of men in their 20s becomes a really big problem in the next 10-30 years.
Speaking of... gender (this is way off-topic), has anyone else watched Agent Carter? There was a moment in the last episode where the government official codebreaker guy is stumped by some string of letters and numbers and she takes one look at it and says "it's a one-time pad, and it's in Russian" and proceeds to immediately write down a translation. I spent the rest of the episode trying to figure out if the writers don't know what a one-time pad is, or if they do and we could infer that she wasn't really decoding the message at all but just writing down something she knew based on other sources as a means to arrange for her boss to order the mission she thought needed to happen.
Do you think the writers would trust their audience to know what a one-time pad was, even if the writers themselves knew?
Hey, I'm not assuming a Bush victory. But I don't think we're well served by either (a) overconfidence of the kind I see in 57 or (b) anyone forgetting that the consequences of a Bush win would be exactly as stated in 145.
152: Probably not, it just amazes me that they can reach for the technobabble and come away with literally the only unbreakable code as the thing that she broke. And the latter scenario seemed like a plausible and fun way to demonstrate her competence by having her hoodwink all of her coworkers. Oh well.
It's a one time pad, and look I happen to have the pad in my pocket?
I've been watching it. That was a shaky bit at best, but if I had to guess I'd go with 'they had the pad there' as the explanation. I mean, they seized the typewriter because it was in that guy's room - what are the chances that the pad was as well?* Wouldn't you need that along with the typewriter if you were going to use it? Also there was a board in the back of the room with stuff written all over it so that could have been either the pad or a transcription of the message, the other bit being the one Carter was working with. Then it would be a matter of Carter recognizing the system and also that the initial results he'd gotten (in whatever way he'd tried applying it at first) weren't a sign that that wasn't the solution they were just in Russian.
*Not to mention that, come on, it really seems like a setup anyway. I mean, we saw the typewriter working before but never saw any encryption being used. I can totally see that as either an intentional setup or at least a pre arranged booby trap.
If my ballot in November 2016 has both a Bush and a Clinton on it I will puke and then vote for the less comprehensively reprehensible dynasty. Puke puke pukity puke.
I prefer to vote for the most comprehensibly reprehensive one.
//
I can has smart phone! Commenting live from the tiki bar at the mall of America.
//
Cards on the table: I prefer state socialism, but I can't help it, I like Hilary. I've seen her a few times in person and actually found her super charismatic. Not saying she's perfect, but in retrospect the intensity of the 2008 primary (where I was an Obama volunteer, myself) was ridiculous. I've said this before but my view is that she would have done pretty much exactly everything that Obama did but with the potential for being more attentive to domestic policy in 2009-2010 when we really needed it. The line against her is almost 100% foreign policy but there I think you're just dealing with the same Democratic party foreign policy/defense establishment no matter which Democrat you pick.
By "like" there I mean "by reasonable standards of liking a politician,' not "like like."
Ain't that the goddamn truth?
Anyhow, my real view is that democracy has failed.
Have only read the last few comments, but I think the "dynasty" talk with Bush v Clinton is pretty unfair to Clinton. She's an accomplished woman who happened to marry a man who became president. Jeb is the son of a president, who was the son of a senator, who was the son of a rich (self-made) dude. There's a real American dynasty on one side, and an extraordinarily successful couple on the other; these are not equivalent, and penalizing Clinton because the Bushes are a dynasty and it makes a tidy narrative is no good.
Encrypted Russian messages are easy to crack because every third word is "mother" and every fourth word is "fuck".
163: My starting point with "Hillary would have been better" is humming softly under my breath the words "Mark Penn Mark Penn Mark Penn"
I've never been to the Mall of America or a Tiki bar.
Yeah, Penn was a jerk and a moron but I dunno that the presence of dreamboaty smart guy David Axelrod actually made much of a difference to how Obama governed in office. I agree that Hillary was probably marginally more likely to lose the general in 2008 (though still very likely to win).
Or did you just mean "because GOP moderates are closet racists"?
Yeah. Or, more to the point, the same part of their brain that loves hippie-punching looks at a black guy who isn't ultra-conservative and basically sees Malcolm X.
Clearly there are many, many more Republicans who'll vote for a woman than for an African-American - look at state legislatures.
And I'm not talking about a huge swing here: basically I think that voters are on a spectrum (esp. low information ones), and there's a sliver that would look at, say, Joe Biden vs. Louis Gohmert and think, "I don't really like Dems, but that guy is nuts." However, when they look at Obama, suddenly Gohmert starts to make sense (or they think, "he won't really govern the way he talks."). And some chunk of that sliver (especially the ladies!) would be willing to vote for Hillary.
You honestly don't think Chelsey's got political ambitions?
172: there's a school of thought that says we have the ACA because of Axelrod. I have no idea if that's right -- I wasn't in the room, and every leak is loaded in one way or another -- but it doesn't seem impossibly far-fetched.
Stormcrow is right in 173.
The "Clinton Dynasty" talk has always pissed me off. This isn't some homemaker being handed her late husband's Senate seat because it's 1940 and somehow that made sense to people.
It's certainly a sign of how American politics works - famous names are always helpful - but Bush ≠ Clinton, dynasty-wise.
I've always thought the Penn point wasn't so much that he'd personally end up with a lot of power but that Clinton thought he was a great idea. And a massive part of being the head of the executive branch is picking people to do important things, so good judgment there (which Obama had and Clinton didn't) is really a big deal.
Clearly there are many, many more Republicans who'll vote for a woman than for an African-American - look at state legislatures.
I'm not sure I'm following the state legislature point. Do republican districts send more women to state legislatures than african americans, once adjusting for the population demographics of the district? I'm not saying that's wrong, I've just never seen that data.
I don't know what to make of Chelsea*, but she's definitely not on the ballot in '16.
If she's on the ballot in 2028, I promise to grumble.
*at first it seemed like she was maybe being aggressive about getting on the candidate track - building a balanced resume, not looking too ambitious - but the whole MSNBC thing seems like a real mistake, and of course now she's tending her mother's campaign propraising her child, so no signals either way.
How many people from the same immediate family need to be elected president of the united states before it's fair to declare that family something of a political dynasty? Honestly two seems like enough. The word "dynasty" does not imply that the members of the dynasty are personally unqualified for office.
You would at least need to move to a second generation for 'dynasty' to become a thing, wouldn't you?
I still think it was important that Hillary didn't win in 2008. It'll make democrats have to worry at least a tiny bit about warmongering in the future.
179: State legislatures include Republican women of all stripes, including ones who'd probably be Dems on a national stage. I'm not aware of any A-A Republican legislators who are "moderate".
Hell, the latest GOP anti-abortion measure foundered because of a revolt from Republican women in the US House; do you think there are any black Republicans who could win seats if they were seen as squishes on abortion (let alone on racial issues, which would be a more appropriate comparison)?
good judgment there (which Obama had and Clinton didn't)
Ahem.
Rahm Fucking Emmanuel.
Timothy Fucking Geithner.
We know Obama's appointee track record, and a manichean "good" is not an appropriate descriptor.
[I agree that Mark Penn is a black mark on HRC; I just think it's silly to end the grading in May of 2008; we have more data]
I agree with 183, btw. It's just nice to have in the anti-war camp's back pocket: "Are you sure this is the right vote? Do you want to be like HRC in 2008?"
Come to think of it, focusing on Mark Penn dilutes that message, but presumably the conventional wisdom on this is set in stone. Does anyone know? If you asked a mid-level hack* in DC "Why did Hillary lose in 2008?", would the answer be Iraq or Penn?
*assume here they aren't knee-jerk inclined to aggrandize the position of campaign consultant
The point made in 183 seems legit, as does that made in 185. So, I guess I just agree with JRoth. But "fire a warning shot over the bow to stop people from mindlessly ever voting for a war again" seems to have had very limited effect even on the Obama administration itself.
I'm at a not Tiki bar now. There is a Chia statue, but nothing has grown yet.
There's also an enema figurine with little arms and legs and a very pointed head.
The point made in 183 seems legit, as does that made in 185.
Yep. Emerson was on point here.
168: re dynasties
I agree that the Clintons look much better on that grade than the Bushes, but "dynasties" isn't really the way I look at it, incorporating int'l politics and history. Imelda Marcos or Benazir Bhutto didn't rule alone.
No, neither family is merely a dumb front, but they are understood better as representing factions or coalitions, maybe Rubinites versus what, PNAC? But definitely Rubinites on the Clinton side. So in that sense, Obama was a continuation of the Clinton dynasty.
I think you're shortchanging Obama here, there were a lot of wars he could have started and didn't. Plus he didn't have to try to make peace with Iran and Cuba. I'm certainly not saying he's been great, but he could have been way way worse while still being in the mainstream of the democratic party.
And then they didn't even show the fucking movie! Grrr. I felt bad for the AM/MOD young woman though. She was nice and super frazzled.
I want to order wings but I just had a cheeseburger and fries. Instead of an angel on my shoulder, it's a tiny Wilford Brimley saying, "diabetes".
way way worse while still being in the mainstream of the democratic party
It's depressing because it's true!
Ogged is very right in 168.
The problem with Clinton is not quite dynasty, but entitlement. A Harper's magazine article -- titled "Stop Hillary" (available online only to subscribers, so I don't bother to link) -- from a few months ago had some pretty grimace-worthy information. The one I chiefly remember is that while the Clintons were in office in Arkansas, Hillary had a saying, "First Bill, then Hill." (for president)
But I doubt that sort of thing will get out to the general public. And a lot of people really like Bill. Jeb Bush's biggest problem, it has continued to strike me, is his moneyed status. How many investments and boards did he have to resign from just a month ago before showing presidential ambitions? I somehow doubt that the American public will punish him for his family name; that won't be the issue.
There's more than that - there's also this. (The second part is here.)
I wouldn't trust the Washington Times on the Clintons if they told me she's a Cubs fan and he likes James Brown.
200 was me. But, let's be honest, can we really believe that a man like Bill Clinton, responsible for killing over two dozen people at Mena, would listen to a God-fearing businessman like James Brown? It's probably narcocorridos all day long (and into the night, iykwim).
Ogged is, of course, correct about Hillary and dynasties, but I'll take it a step further and say that there's nothing particularly wrong with real dynasties in U.S. politics.
I would have voted for JF or Bobby for president, and I actually did vote for Teddy. Al Gore made a fine senator from Tennessee, and it seems likely that he never would have had the chance had he not been the son of a senator. Jerry Brown is okay with me. Are the younger Udalls worth a damn? I don't actually know.
Ronald Reagan and Dick Nixon, along with Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, non-dynasty politicians. They are a mixed bag.
When Chelsea gets the Democratic nomination, I'm sure I'll vote for her, and if her politics are okay, I'll vote for her enthusiastically, regardless of her ties to a dynasty.
Dynasties probably beat generals or actors, other old timey American favorites, as weird ways of finding candidates. Still, the Bushes just seem like such a fucking lame dynasty. Oh you have a nice house in Kennebunkport and Barbara Bush has grandma hair, great. Really, these guys are the family that leads the United States for like decades? What the hell. It's not like Bush I was Suleiman the Magnificent or even Osman I or anything.
Are the younger Udalls worth a damn? I don't actually know.
Tom's good. I don't know much about Mark.
Has it been noted that Walker is one of two current governors that never got a college degree?
He's also one of two current governors named Walker, which always makes me confused for a moment when I see references to him in the national news.
205 -- Republicans don't like to admit it, but GHWB was certainly one of the better presidents in my lifetime. The 90s budget deal, not going to Baghdad, wind down of the Cold War without serious incident, ADA, clean air act revisions. I didn't vote for him either time, but he's sure better than either the son or the Gipper. Does Souter cancel out Thomas? No, and I'm not sorry I didn't vote fpr him.
I thought the son was going to emulate the father's Panama thing after 9/11 and get bin Laden, and was surprised when, in the joint session, he announced instead a crusade to eliminate evil from the world.
40, Is "Hedonic" the right word? Maybe just "Perceptual adaptation".
Habituation?
He's also one of two current governors named Walker, which always makes me confused for a moment when I see references to him in the national news.
My immediate response, on hearing that Scott Walker had become Governor of Wisconsin, was to hope that it was this guy.
Heh. I was not familiar with that Scott Walker before now.
Meanwhile, the other Governor Walker is threatening to lay off a bunch of people, but for actually good reasons.
I'm looking forward to picking up a "Don't Blame Me, I Voted for Vermin Supreme" bumper sticker.
Of the white people II work with, there is a decent-sized chunk of Fox-spewing assholes, and a somewhat larger chunk who present as apolitical but who when pressed will generally come up with some redolent chunk of warmed over hatred courtesy of the puke funnel.
IIIIIIIIIIII ain't your stepping stone ....
The current expansion - though it has been slow and shitty and has had a lot of ground to make up - has been going on for a while now. There's a pretty good chance the business cycle will decide to take a dive sometime around 2016.
I agree this is possible - as I said, it's a big IF - but I think that there is so much leftover slack in the economy that I don't think it's the most likely outcome.
Slack:
1. Huge chunks of the populace have been unable to spend on anything but bare necessities, due to unemployment/debt. Those people are starting to move back into the workforce (1M new job seekers last month, biggest jump in 15 years)
2. Bigger chunks have been paying down debt while doing very little consumption spending. There's an 8 year backlog of deferred personal spending.
3. Only in the past 12-15 months have car sales revived. The age of the US fleet is still near all time highs, and while today's (now yesterday's) cars are better built than ever, people with money in their pockets aren't going to put up with driving 12 year old Camrys for that long.
4. The housing overhang situation has flipped completely. Back during the bubble, we had (by trendline) something like 2-3 years' worth of excess housing construction. Well, it's been 8 years, and in none of those 8 years have we been close to building as much housing as long term trends say we "should". Bottom line is that we're due for several years of building 50% more houses* than the historic average. If/when that kicks in, we should have an actual boom, not just recovery.
None of this proves that we can't have a slowdown, especially if the rest of the world crashes around us. But we're nowhere near the kind of overheated economy that typically goes into recession. Maybe Wall Street will drag us down again, but even that required real world impetus.
*and apartments and condos...
Yeah, I agree that there's a lot of slack. Although its not like the stronger Bush years were particularly robust before it all went to shit in 2007-2008. Except for housing getting out of hand.
Worst case scenario is that the recession waits until 2020 to materialize, meaning that Hilary gets booted out of office in a Republican wave year, along with state legislatures across the country, who proceed to gerrymander the country into 10 more years of Shitty Congress.
Whereas best case is a short, sharp recession hitting right before (or after? I'm not sure) the 2018 midterms, with a recovery in full swing 18 months later. That could bring a Dem wave in 2020 that might, finally, put the country on a decent course again.
I've felt for awhile that 2020 is the last, best hope for this country. Dem-friendly electorate, get lots of statehouses, more favorable turf in 2022, and of course 1/3 o the GOP base from 2010 will be dead by then. I know counting on demography is a mug's game, but I think in the short term it's not unreasonable. The New Deal coalition persisted for almost half a century; if things break right in the near future, I can see 2 generations that would sooner take a kick in the nuts than vote for the GOP as it currently exists - and one of those generations is the biggest in history.
If not for SCOTUS, I could see reason to feel OK about a Republican president in 2016: I think we still retake the Senate, and I'd give decent odds of a big Dem wave in 2020.
Oh, one more source of slack: the whole recovery to date has been without any government jobs. States (at least those without bozos in charge, which admittedly is a minority at this point) are starting to see rising revenues and talking about growing again. Imagine 50k new teachers hired every month for the next 12*; that's a pretty good baseline for the monthly jobs report.
*300k were laid off from '09 through '12; with population growth, there should probably have been ~50k added during those years, and another missing 50k in the years since. So maybe I'm high, but this is the ballpark we're talking about, and I haven't even gotten into all the other gov't employees laid off or not hired. This report, from Aug '12, says gov't employment was 1.7M below trend, and I think it's safe to say we're farther below trend now (10,000 gov't jobs lost in Dec). So let's say 100k new gov't jobs every month from now until November 2016; I'd say that would look good for the Dems, no?
Imagine 50k new teachers hired every month for the next 12
It would be better to hire them in August/September, no?
I'm less optimistic about public hiring. The new Republican governor of Maryland recently decided that 8 years wasn't too long to have gone without a Cost of Living Adjustment increase for state workers. He'd probably be happy to make it 12 years.
If not for SCOTUS
It violates all that is good and holy, but every time I see this phrase I feel like I want to ask Mrs. Lincoln whether she liked the play.
I know you're not trying to justify some sort of apostasy. But even so, an awful lot of stuff gets decided by the Executive, and allowing a Republican in that position, even without considering the judiciary, is just too big a risk to ever wave away. Even with a guy with good instincts (let's just imagine one) you're still going to have assholes at USDA, Interior, Labor, HHS, and/or whatever.
217+:What Piketty and Summers Don't Tell You About Inequality
Our preliminary simulations show that the top one percent's share of wealth might stabilize in the range of fifty percent (half the total pie), and the growth rate might settle down at less than two percent per year
Excluding unknown unknowns, the wages/wage share just ain't there, and I think the PtB have decided that the wages will never be "there," and have figured out how to manage the resulting society. In the short term, Central Banks will nip recoveries before they get into wage inflation. You really do need an average of 3-5% core, and probably a few double-digit quarters. We will have any more "booms" over banker's dead bodies.
The Great Compression, Piketty's fat years of 45-75, or even 1920-1980, included one fucking fuckton of global social disruption and old money is conservative. Piketty did tell us. War and revolution. It's the only way to be sure.
I've felt for awhile that 2020 is the last, best hope for this country. Dem-friendly electorate, get lots of statehouses, more favorable turf in 2022, and of course 1/3 o the GOP base from 2010 will be dead by then.
1/3 of the Republican base dies every 10 years?
Be the change you want to see in the world?
1/7 of everybody dies every 10 years. Republicans skew old. I could see it.
The "Clean out your electrical outlets with a screwdriver the Paul Ryan way" campaign didn't help things.
114: I think she actually likes being a Senator and doesn't want to be President. I also think that Wall Street would find a way to crush her.
My Republican uncle and his girlfriend both voted for Obama against McCain in 2008. She, at least, was so upset when he appointed Clinton Secretary of State that she said she would never vote for him again.
Does anyone take any of the non-Clinton candidates seriously? I wondered whether Biden was planning to run, because I hadn't heard that anyone other than Clinton was even considering a bid.
I think Biden wouldn't be a half bad president (and probably better than Clinton). But I hope his advisers have already sat him down and explained that people have a pretty settled impression of him (no matter how accurate), and America just isn't going to elect Fun Uncle Joe president no matter how much they like him.
Yeah, I think the only possibility of a Biden presidency would be if Clinton had a surprise health problem late in the primaries; he might be able to swoop in as a plausible last-minute alternative.
Apparently Biden is visiting Iowa next week. Maybe its just a coincidence?
I just hope she can find a VP choice who's under 60.
