Froom the comments section on Nate Silver’s 538 blog, where he notes a 1 in 4 chance of the GOP taking the Senate:
October is known for its surprises, but I would not be surprised if the electorate became more informed about the facts, and the distortions prevalent on both Network and Cable TV, and of course Talk Radio, as we approach this crucial election. And please don’t underestimate the effect of C-span.org on independent voters, who watch Washington Journal regularly with passion.
The combination of earnest hopefulness that the voters will “come to their senses”, apparent ignorance of the fact that “swing” voters tend to be by far the least informed part of the electorate, and the pairing of “passion” with “Washington Journal,” a show only slightly less dull than watching professional golf on t.v., made me laugh out loud.
A Non-E Mous says:
I know this is not really to the heart of the post’s topic, but I see a lot of people talk about watching golf on TV being incredibly boring. Still, there’s a reason major networks like ABC pick up the Masters, US Open, and other big events – it draws in viewers. For a very large segment of the population, watching golf on TV is anything but dull.
September 8, 2010, 8:07 amgo vols says:
David,
Are you sure your sarcasm detector isn’t off?
…
Actually, having now read the entire comment, I’m at a loss as to whether the commenter thinks, not what he thinks.
September 8, 2010, 8:30 amThe Liberal says:
First of all, watching professional golf is not boring. Maybe for an anti-athlete like yourself, but for those of us who appreciate the talent and skill involved and the effort required to refine that talent and acquire that skill, professional golf is anything but boring.
That said, I agree with you that the hope that people will come to their senses is foolish. People judge the party in power by present results, even though the present results here are clearly a result of failed past policy by Republicans, who caused the financial crisis which in turn caused the worst recession since the Great Depression.
I am confident of this. When Republicans come into power and the economy fails to get better but all they do is shut down the government fighting with Obama, the next bums to be kicked out will be Republicans. Too bad Republicans and Democrats cannot sensibly compromise to fix the economy, but unfortunately each party has an electoral incentive to cause the other to fail, rather than making sensible compromises that would make America succeed.
September 8, 2010, 8:35 amThe Liberal says:
Preach brother! Preach!
September 8, 2010, 8:36 amerp says:
When CSPAN started it was truly even-handed, but during the Clinton impeachment and 1996 election, the calls became overwhelmingly anti-Clinton, CSPAN instituted to two separate telephone lines, one pro- and one anti-Clinton, so they could be “fair” and take alternate calls.
No doubt, Clinton made it clear that there would be consequences if they didn’t do that, but that’s when I stopped watching it.
September 8, 2010, 8:42 amRoger the Shrubber says:
Actually, Washington Journal ran a lengthy series on DC real estate prices that was utterly fascinating. Gripping.
September 8, 2010, 8:46 amLinda says:
Even funnier to me was how the Nate Silver commenter thinks Democratic prospects this election could be bolstered by the “possible capture of bin Laden.”
How far we’ve come from all the talk of Cheney-Rovian plots to “steal” elections by doing just that.
September 8, 2010, 8:55 amThatGuy says:
The effect of C-Span is only slightly greater than the effect of Jim Lehrer.
Oh, and FRAUD!
September 8, 2010, 8:57 amERH says:
Well there was that one time Brian Lamb told a caller to put down the crack pipe.
September 8, 2010, 9:07 amRhode Island Lawyer says:
No doubt you have some evidence of that.
September 8, 2010, 9:19 amFloridan says:
No doubt? What consequences might that have been?
Perhaps you don’t realize that C-Span is not a government run or funded television channel.
A much more likely reason they went to two lines is to avoid repetitive comments.
September 8, 2010, 9:21 ammistahrmandias says:
“For a very large segment of the population, watching golf on TV is anything but dull”
Its more about the demographics of viewers than it is the number of viewers. Golf doesn’t draw great ratings, but the folks who do watch make advertisers salivate.
September 8, 2010, 9:26 amPersonFromPorlock says:
LOL! Both ears and the tail!
September 8, 2010, 9:37 amuh_clem says:
At first I too thought Prof. Bernstein’s irony detector was mis-calibrated. Having now read the comment, I’m not so sure.
FRAUD!
September 8, 2010, 9:45 amuh_clem says:
Either my irony meter is miscalibrated, or you’re trying to one-up the featured comment from Nate Silver’s site.
FRAUD!
September 8, 2010, 9:48 amDotar Sojat says:
Watching poker is the ultimate dull viewing. Watching Charlie Hoffman’s final round 62 this weekend was great.
September 8, 2010, 9:50 amerp says:
To: Rhode Island Lawyer – Evidence of the empirical persuasion.
To: Floridan – I know CSPAN isn’t government run or funded, but there are other kinds of pressure and if Lamb was worried about repetitious comments, he’d stop having the same boring lefties on the panel shows.
To: uh_clem – What does your comment means?
Why am I not suprised that there are still Clinton supporters among the legalistas. He was, afterall, your champion.
September 8, 2010, 10:00 amSteve says:
A clear winner.
September 8, 2010, 10:19 amWalsh says:
Despite Brian Lamb’s initial goal of political truth, C-SPAN was long ago assimilated by the Beltway Borg … and offers little other than Democrat/Republican talking-head mainstream views– and Congressional camera boredom.
An occasional libertarian or independent is thrown into the C-SPAN mix… as a rare curiosity.
C-SPAN is a painfully outdated medium and message, extremely resistant internally to improvement.
Might as well watch Williams/Couric/Sawyer for slicker & shorter presentation of the same Beltway spin.
{…’watching-paint-dry’ is the more apt metaphor for C-SPAN… rather than TV ‘golf’}
September 8, 2010, 10:30 amArthur Kirkland says:
Bingo. Think of those accounting firm TV spots, with two people relaxing at a polo fundraiser: ‘Those SEC auditors have been in our offices for two weeks longer than usual this time, and Harry down in international tax heard a couple of ‘em talking about that synthetic leasing arrangement . . . that Ghanian-Cayman thing, the one the lawyers wouldn’t put anything in writing? [cue sun from behind clouds] But I’m not worried about any of it, or my bonus, because as soon as I fly back to the states I’m signing the engagement letter with BDO. In fact, the partner’s already on it.’
How many viewers constitute that ad’s target?
Golf involves highly refined narrowcasting. The Masters and U.S. Open are broad-interest events, much like the annual Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest or the Kentucky Derby, but most golf bores most people. I like to golf, but not to watch standard professional golf. The players are not athletes in the league of basketball or tennis or football players, and the universe from which the finest golfers distinguish themselves is relatively small, causing one to wonder to what degree they constitute the “best.”
I try to watch the Masters and U.S. Open on Sunday, and I almost always watch some of the tournament conducted at a club of which I was a member. Other than that, I would much rather play than watch. Most people don’t care that much.
September 8, 2010, 10:32 amMDT says:
Arthur Kirkland,
Think of those accounting firm TV spots, with two people relaxing at a polo fundraiser: ‘Those SEC auditors have been in our offices for two weeks longer than usual this time, and Harry down in international tax heard a couple of ‘em talking about that synthetic leasing arrangement . . . that Ghanian-Cayman thing, the one the lawyers wouldn’t put anything in writing? [cue sun from behind clouds] But I’m not worried about any of it, or my bonus, because as soon as I fly back to the states I’m signing the engagement letter with BDO. In fact, the partner’s already on it.’
Well, I’m trying to, but I have to say I’ve never seen one. Possibly because golf, televised or otherwise, is as boring to me as to DB. Give me what a golfer spends golfing and I’ll gladly spend it myself. On CDs, or books, or cooking implements. Maybe cat toys ;-)
September 8, 2010, 10:46 amAnother guy named Dan says:
Even more than that. If you want your tournament to be televised, as named sponsor you pretty much need to buy the airtime up front, or at least guarantee the network will make its production costs back. Without television coverage, your chances of attracting the top players is next to null. Most of the middle ranked players get bonuses based on the number of times they are seen on TV, which is a more reliable income stream than the prize money they may or may not receive
But it seems to be worth it to certain targeted advertisers. If you’re selling beer, motor oil, or razor blades, the NFL, MLB, and NASCAR can all do the trick. When your product is industrial turbines, auditing services, business process consulting, or other products that are normally sold at “C” level within corporations, then golf is the way to go.
September 8, 2010, 10:58 amArthur Kirkland says:
I marvel at how frequently BDO runs those ads. Not just during golf tournaments, either. I think “the partner is already on it” might be a tagline.
September 8, 2010, 11:03 amArthur Kirkland says:
I learned to golf relatively late (30s) after a mentor explained, when I declined a golf invitation, I needed to make a long-term choice: Golf, or spend the time working. “No one will complain if you golf with clients — five hours of fresh air, trees, fun, scaring up some business, having a few beers, building relationships — and no one will object if you spend those hours behind that desk, working. You pick.”
I have never had a good handicap, but I am glad I learned to golf.
September 8, 2010, 11:12 amMartinned says:
Does the US Congress broadcast its activities on the internet? (For comparison, here’s Barroso’s State of the Union address from yesterday.)
September 8, 2010, 11:24 amJames Gibson says:
First, golf is a religion not a sport (golf spelled backwards is flog you understand).
Second, the October surprise will be a sudden spike in job growth. Unfortunately, not due to the stimulus or any other Obama spending. It will be due to companies starting the next fiscal year and allocating money for additional personnel.
September 8, 2010, 11:29 amDavid Cohen says:
What’s both scary and funny about the comments on that post is that the things the Dems are saying (the polls are inaccurate; just wait until the base becomes energized; the media is skewing opinion; we’ll capture bin Laden; pollsters don’t get that people are mad because the party hasn’t gone far enough; etc) are exactly what the Reps were saying at this point in 06 and 08.
September 8, 2010, 11:35 amMDT says:
Arthur Kirkland,
I think “the partner is already on it” might be a tagline.
Hmph. The closest thing I see to a “tagline” in the ads on what little TV I watch is the couple relaxing in his ‘n’ hers bathtubs at the end of every Viagra/Cialis/whatever ad. And I don’t belong to that target demographic either.
September 8, 2010, 11:37 amgab says:
It’s Cialis. And watch the commercials carefully – I see a tremendous amount of sexual or, ahem, “performance” symbolism at work in the Cialis ads.
And don’t tell me I’m watching too much TV…
September 8, 2010, 11:43 amSarcastro's Little Brother says:
Watching bowling really is boring.
–”He has a difficult 7/10 split, Phil.”
–”There’s his approach. Ooh, just missed.”
Maybe it, golf, poker and Congress in session can be broadcast together on the “No Excitement Network.”
September 8, 2010, 11:53 amRoscoe says:
If the excuse for televising golf is “highly refined narrowcasting” to obtain viewers with good demographics, than what is the excuse for NASCAR? It mystifies me how anyone can watch either of these things on television.
September 8, 2010, 12:06 pmuh_clem says:
The only televised sport that really holds my interest is curling. Golf, tennis, football, etc. just don’t have the same kind of compelling strategy as curling. Basketball is probably the most coma-inducing of the major sports (NASCAR and poker might count if they were actually sports).
Back to the topic at hand, recall the “astounding” Gallup poll of last week that had the GOP up by ten 51-41 and was splashed all over the front page. Well, today Gallup released another result http://www.gallup.com/poll/142892/Parties-Tied-Generic-Ballot.aspx and the ten point gap is gone – the generic ballot is tied 46-46.
Does this mean:
A) last weeks result was wrong and this week’s is correct
B) this weeks result is wrong and last week’s was correct
C) Polling is imprecise and highly variable, so don’t put too much stock in it.
I’m going for C.
September 8, 2010, 12:22 pmKevin R says:
Dave Barry wrote something about televised bowling in a column once:
A: “He missed the 10-pin, Bob.”
September 8, 2010, 12:23 pmB: “Yes. He failed to knock it down.”
A: “It is still standing up.”
B: “You mean the 10-pin?”
Mark Horning says:
I am firmly of the belief that if Golf were any slower it would be Farming.
And the effect of unafiliated (i.e. independent) voters is often grossly overstated, voter turnout, and geting your guys to show up is the key driver of modern elections.
September 8, 2010, 12:28 pmkrs says:
Earnest hope makes me laugh out loud too.
September 8, 2010, 12:32 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
At the other extreme, hockey must be intensely interesting. It excites Canadians, fer Pete’s sake!
September 8, 2010, 12:33 pmFloridan says:
Walsh: “An occasional libertarian or independent is thrown into the C-SPAN mix… as a rare curiosity.”
Because they are rare and curious.
September 8, 2010, 12:54 pmAnon21 says:
Is this the new thing now? Picking out random, stupid, anonymous comments on other people’s websites and then mocking them?
September 8, 2010, 1:06 pmBlue says:
Is there anyone who believes that, in the entire history of Washington Journal, a single viewer changed their vote based on what it broadcast?
September 8, 2010, 1:15 pmKamal says:
I think the presumption on 538 is that people vote in their own interest if they are properly informed. Daniel may be right.. people’s principals could overshadow their interests. Conservatives have done a great job convincing people that even though history provides good evidence that protecting the wealth of the rich does nothing good for everyone else (there is no sudden altruism when the rich get more money, they just continue to save it), they still want to believe it. It provides a very convincing argument that is incredibly simple to understand: less intervention equals increased freedom. It’s such a seductively simple (and wrong) argument that it’s nearly impossible to overcome with facts. This is mostly due to people defining freedom as lack of intervention (usually the government), so this becomes a tautology.
If you define freedom as something measurable, such as the sum of all available choices all people are able to make, suddenly the conservative argument becomes much weaker.
September 8, 2010, 1:45 pmBlue says:
Exactly! Because the choice of, say, a black or white iPhone should be weighed exactly the same as the choice, say, to get a college degree.
September 8, 2010, 1:52 pmuh_clem says:
No, that’s not the presumption of Nate Silver, blogger-in-chief at 538. It’s the presumption of one of the ~72(so far) commenters. Unfortunately, it’s not a testable hypothesis, as it is impossible to “properly inform” the electorate.
September 8, 2010, 2:00 pmBob from Ohio says:
Are there ratings for C-Span?
I find it hard, very hard, to believe that there are enough viewers of C-span to influence any election.
The sub-set of C-span viewers who passionately watch it must be to small to measure.
September 8, 2010, 2:11 pmTed says:
I have (had) a low handicap and I picked working. Is that the wrong choice?
September 8, 2010, 2:19 pmGeorge Grady says:
Of all the inane, ridiculous commen….wait, what?
September 8, 2010, 2:44 pmwhit says:
i love watching poker. i used to play. quite profitably. until the leftwing nanny WA legislature made online play for money a C felony.
the ESPN broadcasters are excellent. i also like high stakes poker.
September 8, 2010, 3:04 pmTom Smith says:
I can’t believe anybody doesn’t like watching golf on TV. Of course it’s boring; that’s part of its charm. It’s also very soothing, the courses are pretty to look at and pros can do amazing things with that little white ball. Cricket is also good.
September 8, 2010, 3:37 pmAnon says:
And the savings are invested. Creating some jobs usually. Unless they are invested in some of the slop wall st was hawking the last decade or so.
September 8, 2010, 3:43 pmmack says:
A golf course is a perfectly good waste of a rifle range.
The November midterm election will result in huge democratic losses.
The big winners will be the tea party and Palin – who will be in powerful positions for the coming 2012 election – provided of course the world doesn’t end before or by then.
For ninety percent of Americans the economy is not going to improve much if at all in the next two years. Most will still be working harder for less. And that will determine the outcome of the 2012 election.
September 8, 2010, 3:52 pmMDT says:
Kamal,
I think the presumption on 538 is that people vote in their own interest if they are properly informed.
There is a class of people that I think we can all agree have the means to discover whatever needs knowing about what will further “their own interest.” I mean the extremely wealthy.
Don’t they know their own interest, so far as anyone can? Can’t they research what will further it, so far as anyone can?
Can we not assume that every one of them has been “properly informed”?
Yet they still persist in being sometimes Democrats, sometimes Republicans. Weird, yes?
September 8, 2010, 3:59 pmNickM says:
The original comment was cut off. He meant to say that they watch Washington Journal with passion-fruit tea.
Nick
September 8, 2010, 4:19 pmgeokstr says:
Right.
Just like leftists have done a magical job convincing people that their Great Leaders who snuffed those 100 million people because they didn’t agree with their ideology were not “True Leftists”, or that at least it was a piddling amount of eggs to pay for the wonderful omelet that the proles in the resulting Workers’ Paradises got to feast upon. And that the wreckage of all those formerly productive economies that leftism has produced in the last 100 years are but a transitory phase on the way to nirvana, because this time they’ll do it right. And that it was just a coincidence the awful capitalist system that made so many evil rich people also happened at the same time as the growth of the largest middle class in the entire history of the freakin’
planetGaia. And that growing a monstrous dependent class would be great for everyone. And that that worthless scrap of paper penned by all those racist slave-owning DWEMs a couple hundred years ago that guaranteed the freest people in recorded history is just words, meaningless twaddle that can be interpreted as the current elites see fit, with no unintended consequences.Real, like, you know, actual history and stuff never was your strong suit, was it? But then again, your patron saint, St. Karl of Marx, knew that he who controls the present, controls the past, and that he who controls the past, controls the future. All those leftists in the
propaganda ministrieseducation and journalistic professions are beginning to bear fruit.1984 here we come.
September 8, 2010, 4:22 pmTed says:
Divorced, White, Educated Male?
September 8, 2010, 4:33 pmGuy says:
If the people who call in to Washington Journal are in the driver’s seat of America, we are all doomed.
September 8, 2010, 4:47 pmsilverpie says:
No, there’s no reason to take ratings for them because they don’t have commercials.
September 8, 2010, 4:49 pmAngus says:
geokstr had stopped parodying the frothing wing of the conservative movement, and has now begun parodying himself doing a parody of the frothing wing of the conservative movement.
September 8, 2010, 4:59 pmElliot says:
What system has a better historical record of providing prosperity for the greatest numbers? Not theory, but history? Is prosperity is a function of altruism? If the rich gave away everything they have in a spasm of altruism, how would that lead to prosperity?
September 8, 2010, 5:03 pmElliot says:
It’s actually quite encouraging that democrats are relying on Washington Journal to save them.
September 8, 2010, 5:06 pmSarcastro says:
Clearly, history is clearly on the side of supply side economics and trickle down effects. Clearly. No theory needed. And anyone who likes FDR is using ideology, not history. Likewise disagreeing with Hayek.
And if you like some altruism, you had better like total altruism. Just like if you approve of some taxes you want a 100% tax rate.
September 8, 2010, 5:17 pmSarcastro says:
I also agree with geokstr, that whatever a liberal says yelling about how Stalin was awful and you love Stalin and why don’t you marry Stalin is a devastating counter.
September 8, 2010, 5:23 pmMDT says:
Missed this before in my eagerness to respond to the sentence just prior.
Kamal:
Conservatives have done a great job convincing people that even though history provides good evidence that protecting the wealth of the rich does nothing good for everyone else (there is no sudden altruism when the rich get more money, they just continue to save it), they still want to believe it.
Look, I’m no fan of the ultra-ultra-rich, but even they don’t just sit on their money, or dive into it daily like Scrooge McDuck. They spend it on stuff. Sometimes it’s stuff you and I want money spent on; much more often it’s stuff only a befuddled idiot with a bottomless purse would even think of buying; but either way, someone processed it, cut it, shaped it, wrote it, painted it, fashioned it into a luxury yacht, whatever. People did work and were paid for it.
Money in the abstract just isn’t that interesting. Sooner or later, the people who have it always want to trade it for something else.
September 8, 2010, 5:45 pmSarcastro says:
[Not all of it, that's the thing. Unlike the poor, and middle class, the expenses of the rich are outweighed by their income, else they wouldn't be rich. To be sure, much of this savings goes into investment, but what with the financial sector these days, I don't think that counts as stimulating.]
September 8, 2010, 5:54 pmTed says:
Agreed. So we’ve narrowed the argument to, “which system provides the best model for prosperity.” I would argue that Mr. Scooge spending $11,000,000 on a Gulf Stream does not stimulate the economy as well as 11,000 people each buying $1,000 of middle-class consumer products. Consider the diversity of products supported by each scenario. Consider the increase in gross choice. Sure, that 11M might eventually trickle down to the 1000 plebs, but it’s called a trickle for a reason; it might take a generation or two without any real benefit for the delay.
September 8, 2010, 6:03 pmTed says:
Also, what Sarcastro said, though I think it was just lazy of him to say it with brackets.
September 8, 2010, 6:05 pmDerHahn says:
I think Guy is the only commenter who has actually listened to some of the callers to Washington Journal. Phoning CSPAN was blog-commenting before blog-commenting was cool.
September 8, 2010, 6:06 pmDerHahn says:
@Ted .. It takes a generation before Gulfstream’s employees need to eat? Pay their mortgages? Pay for their kid’s school clothes?
September 8, 2010, 6:09 pmgab says:
mack says:
“A golf course is a perfectly good waste of a rifle range.
The November midterm election will result in huge democratic losses.
The big winners will be the tea party and Palin — who will be in powerful positions for the coming 2012 election — provided of course the world doesn’t end before or by then.
For ninety percent of Americans the economy is not going to improve much if at all in the next two years. Most will still be working harder for less. And that will determine the outcome of the 2012 election. ”
Mack taking lessons from Nate…
September 8, 2010, 6:10 pmTed says:
Sorry. I meant that it may take a generation for that $11,000,000 to reach the hands of the 1,000 plebs. Of course it would shuttled back into the economy, but not as efficiently as if it started in the hands of the 1,000 plebs.
September 8, 2010, 6:28 pmChris Green says:
Interesting argument. However, I’m not sure I completely agree. First of all, you have to ask yourself which group is more likely to buy products made in another country. However, if you are talking global prosperity, this distinction becomes meaningless. At that point, the question becomes: Which group is most likely to spend money on products such that the money spent (or invested) is eventually used to create (or research) the kinds of technological breakthroughs and products that lead to increased prosperity in the future. As you can see, the question is extremely complex and I think we kid ourselves when we try to reduce it to dramatically more simple terms.
September 8, 2010, 6:43 pmTed says:
No doubt a shout-out to the revelation that most of the $600 stimulus check when to cheap Chinese-made sneakers and clothing. But really, that it is something that can be controlled for irrespective of redistribution of wealth via taxation. Just make it illegal to import foreign products, or tax it such that middle class would rather buy homegrown stuff. These tactics are not new.
As for innovation, I think the prospect of getting rich is enough to make people innovate. In fact, I’m not even convinced that prospect is necessary. I don’t think taxing people more that make over 250k a year is going to significantly deter innovation. We’ll see how this R&D tax break works out, eh?
September 8, 2010, 7:27 pmElliot says:
Why is that?
September 8, 2010, 9:20 pmSarcastro says:
A man of straw after my own heart!
September 8, 2010, 9:26 pmElliot says:
Ted tells us our task is to identify “which system provides the best model for prosperity.” Would you eliminate from consideration the model where everyone has the same? If so, why?
September 8, 2010, 9:43 pmElliot says:
If we consider the Gulfstream employees to be plebes, they get a big share of the price immediately. If the employees of all the suppliers of Gulfstream components are plebes, then they also get an immediate big share. If we consider retired auto workers and school teachers to be plebes, then the quarterly dividends paid into their retirement plan portfolios by Gulfstream are also nearly immediate.
Exactly where do you contend that $11 million is for a generation?
September 8, 2010, 9:52 pmSarcastro says:
[I must confess that I do not understand your point then. Th thought you were talking to Kamal.]
September 8, 2010, 10:08 pmerp says:
bbbeard – I guess you’ve never heard either Gramm nor Barbour speak. It’s nothing like the soft drawl of Clinton or even Carter. It’s very hard to understand.
BTW – Preview is still not working.
September 8, 2010, 10:39 pmJohn Thacker says:
Remarkable satire from whoever likes to call himself “The Liberal.” Juxtaposing a reasonable point about how people blame politicians for events that politicians have little control over with a perfect example of committing that fallacy himself. I sincerely doubt that the commenter could explain how Republican policies “clearly” caused the financial crisis, especially without referring to inaccurate shibboleths like “deregulation” or certain repeals of banking regulation (regulation that crisis-free Canada never had, and repeal of which occurred with bipartisan support during the Clinton administration (Not that I’m saying that facile explanations from the right are “clearly” true either.)
September 8, 2010, 11:34 pmTony Blair on Political Ignorance | theConstitutional.org says:
[...] David Bernstein’s post referencing a commenter who greatly overestimates the extent to which the public pays attention to politics reminds me of an interesting comment on political ignorance from Tony Blair’s recently published memoir: The single hardest thing for a practising politician to understand is that most people, most of the time, don’t give politics a first thought all day long. Or if they do, it is with a sigh…., before going back to worrying about the kids, the parents, the mortgage, the boss, their friends, their weight, their health, sex and rock ‘n’ roll….. [...]
September 9, 2010, 5:49 amFrank Drackman says:
The Single Best TV Sport is Women’s High Jumping.
September 9, 2010, 9:35 amNot the LONG jump, which requires a stockier build and Hilary Clinton-esqe Calves.
The High Jump requires Long, Lean, SuperModel type legs, for the long approach run, and the sensual fosburry flop arched back leap over the bar.
And they show like 20 seconds of it during the Network Olympic Coverage, you gotta get the European Sports Chanel to see it regularly.
mack says:
The long jump? Please. Womens volleyball – the Brazilian Womens Beach Volleyball Team.
September 9, 2010, 10:42 amTed says:
You’re right. I think I may have underestimated the number of people involved in making a Gulf Stream. The delay would depend only on how long it took Richie to buy the airplane and how much profit was made from the airplane, i.e., what percentage of purchase price was distributed to Gulfstream’s employee’s and suppliers.
I agree that it would not take a generation.
September 9, 2010, 11:36 amChem_Geek says:
No, the Gulfstream and suppliers’ employees don’t get a significant share of the price – Gulfstream and suppliers’ management gets it; it’s only shuffled from one rich guy to several other rich guys, with a few dribs and drabs cast off for the little people without whom the rich guys wouldn’t have a thing.
September 9, 2010, 12:00 pmElliot says:
I was addressing Kamal, but then you decided to comment on what I said. That’s the nature of these comments threads. The discussion tends to involve many people and their ideas all contribute to the discussion. So, do you contend the model where everyone has the same should be ignored in evaluating various models?
September 9, 2010, 12:07 pmElliot says:
I agree planes can’t be built without labor. It is a necessarty but not sufficient factor. Water is also a necessary but not sufficient factor. So is electricity and good transportation. What’s your point?
September 9, 2010, 12:22 pmlrC says:
>even though history provides good evidence that protecting the wealth of the rich does nothing good for everyone else…
…except encourage ambitious and creative people to exercise their ambition and creativity in hopes of becoming rich – not that their entrepreneurial effort has any beneficial spin-offs, right?
September 9, 2010, 5:02 pmHerb Spencer says:
I’m surprised no one’s cited, if not exactly quoted, Mark Twain yet, who called golf, “a good walk, ruined.” Which makes watching it, I’ll hazard, a spoiled surveillance sport.
Good post, geokster. Nice to shake ‘em up with passion and the facts from time to time; much more civilized than the usual fertilizer for the tree of liberty. And no, I’m not being sarcastic or condescending, just appreciative of your telling it like it is.
September 9, 2010, 6:36 pmM. Simon says:
Too true. I engaged in it myself. At Five-thirty-eight. I was laughed out of the room (so to speak).
“But we won last time, they must still love us.” Is a hard habit to break.
September 10, 2010, 1:11 amThomas Jackson says:
Democrats would object to having Independents becing called the least informed. Independents just can’t make up their minds. Democrats are the least informed but have made up their minds.
September 10, 2010, 4:56 pmArthur Kirkland says:
The greatest system of economic strength with which I have been familiar is the American system, when a Democrat is president.
September 10, 2010, 8:19 pmElliot says:
1. Which democratic president?
2. What are the specific differences in the system under a democratic vs a republican president? Is it your contention that our economic system undergoes a fundamental change when parties gain the WH?
September 12, 2010, 7:30 pmElliot says:
If the republicans beat the dems in Nov, I wonder if the dems will fall back on the notion that people were just too stupid to comprehend and accept the superior intelligence of the dems? That way they can continue to ernestly tell each other how intelligent, superior, and nuanced they are. It’s not easy being special. Some folks even talk about these Betazoids like they are dogs.
September 12, 2010, 7:36 pm