+ Wow, did Nate Silver ever nail it. He was one of the big stories of this election. I've read a lot about him lately.
This was the first video I watched of him, and my first, unfiltered thought was something like 'He's got a face for radio.' Not good, I know, I think I'd just built him up into sort of a rock star in my mind. I was taken aback a little at first that he wasn't dripping with charisma and good looks.
Triumph of the Nerds: Nate Silver Wins in 50 States
Hmm: can't find the best article I read about Silver today...
+ Interesting post about the changes that had begun and will now go into effect because Romney would lead a repeal: Obama’s second term: Change you can really believe in
Thought I had more to say, but I guess that's it.
Triumph of the Nerds: Nate Silver Wins in 50 States
Hmm: can't find the best article I read about Silver today...
+ Interesting post about the changes that had begun and will now go into effect because Romney would lead a repeal: Obama’s second term: Change you can really believe in
Thought I had more to say, but I guess that's it.
5 comments:
I'm very discouraged about the future of our country. The most hopeful thing I've read about the outcome is that at least Obama will bear the consequences of his bad policies. Although I'm certain that the press, and the Democrats, will continue to say it's all Bush's fault. And, unfortunately, a lot of people who don't bother to inform themselves beyond the mainstream media will believe that. I am dismayed by the lack of integrity displayed by so-called "journalists". I am absolutely appalled that Obama's appeal for the women's vote by offering "free" birth control and abortions worked. I am appalled that so many women seem to think they are entitled to this, that this is somehow central to their identity, and that it's ok to force religious institutions and others who have religious and moral objections to pay for it. The idea that a President who has failed to pass a budget for his entire first term, even when Democrats controlled both houses, who did not even get one vote in favor of his budget this year, who did nothing with the recommendations of the Simpson-Bowles commission, and on and on, will somehow magically become competent in his second term is absurd to me. The lack of outrage over the events in Benghazi is amazing to me. The President and State Department have not been called to account for their responsibility in the outcome. There has been a conspiracy in the press to stay away from covering the event - the press might as well be paid operatives of the Democrat party - we get the same result as if they were. I could go on, but I think this is enough of my ranting for now. :) I do appreciate the opportunity to pour out my frustration over the election.
I guess I do have more to say after all -
The healthcare legislation that will be going into effect will have at least two bad incentives that I am aware of -
1. It contains incentives for employers to change full-time employees to part-time.
2. It contains incentives for smaller business with fewer that 50 employees not to hire if that hiring would bring them to more than 50 employees. (To be fair, there are already such incentives in other federal legislation.) As an employer I can tell you that those things do make a difference when you think about hiring. (It's almost as though people in Washington don't understand basic economic principles, if such a thing could actually be possible.)
Also, the legislation does nothing to encourage an increase in doctors and other health-care professionals and providers. It will, however, require a huge increase in government bureaucracy to keep track of all the new regulations and requirements and taxes. (Of course that's a win for the democrats - more votes for them in the next election.) So now we're back to basic economics - more demand with less supply (doctors will quit practicing because of all the burdensome regulations) - resulting in rising medical costs. But I thought Obamacare was supposed to save us all huge amounts of money! Not so much.
The most accurate thing I read today on the internet:
"and if you don’t think the media won this election for Obama, you’re delusional."
well, then Carol, mark me down as delusional.
given this situation, I don't see the point in responding to the rest of your comments, which I was going to do.
it's interchanges like these that further take away from the possibility of political dialogue.
I decided I should also post a copy of the email I sent Sean in response to his last comment -
I’m sorry, Sean. I apologize. My last post was not gracious and it was disrespectful to you. Of all the Obama supporters I know you have been the most open to dialogue and to hearing and respecting the other side, and I certainly appreciate that about you. And because I like you and respect you I am interested in how you came to such a very different conclusion than I did.
I don’t mean this to be one of those insincere “If I offended you, I’m sorry” apologies that people, especially politicians, often give. I clearly did offend you, and I think you were right to be offended. Having said that, I would like to explain my frustration that resulted in today’s comment. I don’t think this election has been about the possibility of political dialogue. I was hopeful that the selection of Romney and Ryan by the Republicans would open up that dialogue. I think they were serious candidates with real-world experience and credentials necessary to deal with the problems in the US. They did have specific solutions that they promoted, and I hoped that people would seriously consider the very different options for our country’s future that were before them. Obama’s campaign, from my perspective, refused to engage in that political dialogue. He did not give any specifics of what he would do if re-elected beyond the idea that if selfish “rich” people are taxed more there will be plenty of money available for paying down the deficit and also financing the progressive agenda with no ill effects on the economy or anyone except people who already have too much. I think there was general agreement on the right and the left that Obama did not give specifics. Instead Obama concentrated his resources from early on in the primaries to demonize Romney – from what he did when he was in high school, to the family dog, etc. The Obama campaign dwelt on the theme that Romney hated women and wanted to take away their “lady-parts”. They had an official campaign ad comparing voting for Obama to a girl’s first time having sex. Romney was portrayed as somehow being selfish and cheating for donating 30% of his income but Biden is not selfish when he donates something like 0.1% Instead of taking questions from the press in any type of open forum, Obama chose instead to make the circuit, repeatedly, of the progressive-friendly late night comedy/talk shows or the daytime liberal women’s talk shows. I think all of the above, and much more, was aided and abetted by the press. Obama was not called out for running such a shallow campaign. Romney was criticized and demonized for everything. On the day after Benghazi, the entire press coverage in the mainstream media was that Romney’s comments critical of the administration’s response were somehow out of line. As to the Administration’s responsibility in the loss of 4 American lives the coverage was completely repressed until after the election. If Benghazi had happened in a Republican administration I think the press response would have been completely opposite. This is why I’m so frustrated and, yes, angry.
I’m not angry at you, though. You are the one person who is willing to talk about these things, and I appreciate that about you. Even if you don’t change your mind. :) I hope we will still be friends.
Post a Comment