janicks

Are you saying the people at BLS are just making numbers up? There are some really smart people there that do good work and are intellectually honest. If you are saying that politicians cherry pick the data to argue for whatever policy they are pushing, then you're probably right.

I live outside of Baltimore and I don't get the impression that the fans or media here are all that down on Harbaugh. Flacco they are ready to run out of town though. With regards to Gailey, I don't feel like this should be a 5 win team with the tallent here and with the cupcake schedule. I think some of the games were horribly managed, particularly the Indy game, and I think the team completely quit for the Seattle game. Thats all on the coach.

2 questions. Aren't there already legal consequences for this kind of behavior? Do you know how much crime can be attributed to gun owners not doing what you suggest?

I wrote correlation != causation for a reason; there is a good chance the law (as well as its expiration) had no effect. I linked to Steve Levitt's article a few pages back which claimed exactly this. I was only pointing out that that the small sample size could be twisted to make any claim one wants.

correlation != causation. besides, there seems to be a pretty strong downward trend downward since the introduction of the bill, according to your numbers and a noticable spike after its end. *************** The NYTimes linked to these researchers' page today: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html basically claiming more guns = more death, and by a lot. I don't know anyting about these people or the journals they have published in, so I can't say if this is quality work or not.

I've been trying to find nonpartisan research analyzing the relationship between access to guns and gun control laws to violent crime. Its very difficult since most of what is written is clearly with written with an agenda in mind and is not data driven. I did find one article written by Steven Levitt which tries to answer the question: Understanding why crime fell in the 1990s: four factors that explain the decline and six that do not http://www.ingentaco...000001/art00008 His six that do not: 1) the strong economy of the 90s 2) changing demographics 3) better policing strategies 4) gun control laws 5) laws allowing the carying of concealed weapons 6) increased use of capital punishment four that do: 1) increases in the number of police 2) the rising prison population 3) the receding crack epidemic 4) the legalization of abortion* If you know of a good research article, or even better, where to find data on gun ownership and crime data please post or pm me. *suprising, to him as well. His hypothesis: unwanted children are at greater risk for crime and legalized abortion leads to a reduction in the number of unwanted births. edit: as i'm reading, one more interesting note in the article; "Indeed, the most careful study on the subject finds that higher rates of handgun ownership, which represent about one-third of all firearms, may be a causal factor in violent crime rates (Duggan, 2001)."

If the demand is to refrain from including unproven remarks then this forces NASA to refrain from saying anything. If you demand proof, go into mathematics. In climate science the best you can ever do is collect evidence to investigate a hypothesis. Here is the full letter and a list of the signees: http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4 Most of the people on the list talking about climate change seems somewhere between Warren Buffet talking about tax reform and Jenny McCarthy talking about vaccinations. I counted a total of 5 people who might have some idea what they are talking about.

I assume that this is in reference to me, and I have not changed my tune, so don't use me to defend yourself. I still feel bad for the dead kid and his family, I still completely understand the frustration and outrage of the black community with respect to the lack of equality from law enforcement and the judicial system, and I am still 100% positive that if Zimmerman had been black and Martin had been white then the police would have handled everything differently and charges would have been filed. Maybe Zimmerman would have eventually been acquitted, but it would have gone to trial. On an unrelated note, there was an article in today's Washington post about Trayvon Martin-like cases over the past few years and the aftermath of the media spotlight: http://www.washingtonpost.com/todays_paper/A%20Section/2012-04-09/A/1/38.2.2841793734_epaper.html

I don't know why you keep posting this, because it's not true. There is plenty of media outcry about the new black panthers, and they're getting torched by the late night talk shows and the John Stewarts of the world. For someone who supposedly wants everyone to step back and let the system do its job in the Zimmerman case, I don't understand being upset about the perceived lack of public and media condemnation and the fact that there hasn't been an immediate arrest. Charges could still be made.

The original article is first: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Climate+Impact+of+Increasing+Atmospheric+Carbon+Dioxide&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C21&as_sdtp=on not exactly light reading, but very interesting. I've always been irritated by journalists and bloggers reporting on an article such as this and focusing on some point estimate, but not giving any discussion about the uncertainty in the estimate or the model, which is somewhat understandable since journalists don't have the right training, but still, its critical information. But maybe its not the journalists' fault, because I didn't see any estimates about uncertainty in the projections, which is really odd.

Well, yes, but thats why I said, near universal agreement. And I don't know what Krugman is, but I certainly don't consider him an economist, at least not anymore. Maybe he did some real work to get his Nobel, I don't know. I was recently having a discussion with a bunch of economists, and Krugman's name came up. You can't believe the tirade these people went on; not only do they consider Krugman a nut, but a truly dangerous nut since he has such a captive audience through the times. I don't think its just the people in my circle that feel this way either. Just because Romney was successfull as a business person doesn't mean he is qualified to decide macro economic policy. It will all depend on who he puts around him. But I agree with you that since he does have some business sense, there is higher probability that he will listen to qualified people. As to the question of politicians vs. non politicians as 'solutions people,' sure, you are right that there can be academic dishonesty amongst the scholarly types. But the peer review process is truly brutal, and your peers end up eviscerating you if you get caught being stupid or dishonest, so that more often than not, the cream does rise to the top. Politicians on the other hand only have to convince some sizable subset of the general population of the value of their ideology in order to gain influence. And since at least a quarter of America is clinically retarded, it is much easier to gain influence as a politician than an academic.

You're right about economists in that they care nothing about constitutional or legal arguments, only about what is / should be happening with the economy. To the italicized you are not right. Economists almost universally want the individual to be the input (if I understand what you are saying), not the government. Individuals make choices based on what is best for them, which leads individuals to choose the best product, which leads to market competition to deliver to the individual the best product. When the government creates a product, they can undercut the private sector, destroy competition, and end up delivering an inferior product. To the bolded, you have it backwards. The politicians are the ones who should be getting out of the way with respect to fixing the economy, and listening to the economists' solutions. Politicians keep screwing things up. Let the experts fix the problem.

individual mandate:

I'm sorry to see him go because he showed worlds of potential. But given his injury history I'm glad that contract is not on the Bills' books. I trust Nix to spend his money better and fill out the line through the draft. edit: is Bell the last of the FA's? And we lost only him and Parrish? If so, hell of a job by the FO.

"Buy" may not be the right word, and free market is not the point; but the government forces you to pay ss and medicare tax, then "creates" the ss and medicare system, then gives it back to the population. I am not arguing for/against obamacare, or for the current ss/medicare system. I don't even like the current ss system, as I can and do invest my money on my own and get a better return than I can with ss. I'm only asking where the distinction lies.

What you wrote is certainly true for reasons you gave. But I've heard a different argument made which I don't quite know how to resolve. If the government is allowed to tax the population and then buy a product for that population, eg medicare, social security, etc, why is the government not allowed to tell the population to directly buy that product? I'm not an economist, but I collaborate with economists quite a bit, and they tell me that they don't quite understand the distinction.

You don't think telling someone that they should kill themself is crossing some line? I don't know what to say. That level of hate and rage is disturbing to me. While I stand by my first post that got some people riled up, I take back (what ever that means on a message board) what I wrote to 3rdning: it was not productive and I should not have posted that.

You are a frothing at the mouth imbeclie with the reading comprehension of a second grader. You are a fool. And you are the worst kind of fool that is full of self assurance that you are knowledegable and right that reading blog posts and and watching fox news fills you with. You are a fool who makes no attempts to understand those that disagree with you; you instead puff out your chest and yell as loud as you can, all throught the anonimity of the internet. You are a fool who doesn't attempt honest debate or concede points or admit failure or change your mind, because you are the type of fool that thinks that this would make you weak. And I chose my avatar very carefully. That avatar is pure sexy. Take one look at that Mona Lisa smile of Marcia Brady and tell me with a straight face that you're not just a little turned on. Because I know I am. Every single time I look at that picture.

I agree with you that this would be a logical consensus; but based on what I have read I disagree with you that it is the consensus.

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I can't believe the overall sentiment that seems to be here. It seems that the general feeling in this thread is sympathy for Zimmerman, hatred for the media, and a lack of understanding of why this might be a big deal or why anyone cares. Is there not a single black person who post at TBD? Or at least has a friend who is black? The black community hears a story of an unarmed black kid walking through a neighborhood, eating skittles, talking to his girlfriend on his phone, then ends up shot and killed and nobody understands how this can stir up emotions within a community that has plenty of members who have behaved perfectly well throughout their lives but still have countless stories of harrassment that their white counterpart wouldn't have? For some there is a justifiable lack of trust of law enforcement and the justice system and this incident just rips open old wounds. I'm no legal expert, but there seems to me that there is enough evidence that this should have been brought to trial. And my sympathies are directed to the dead kid who didn't have a gun. And besides all this, Zimmerman outweighed the kid by 100 pounds. If you claim that you were getting your ass kicked by a 16 year old that you outweigh by 100 pounds then you deserve to go to jail. Because you are a !@#$ing kitty.

I got Sunday Ticket to go last season. You can watch on your computer, phone, or PS3, but its $350 and the quality, at least for me, was horrible. I can't recommend not getting the 'to go' version enough. You're much better off streaming for free from one of the other well-known sites.

I saw Game Change last Saturday night, and it was entertaining. I thought Julianne Moore and Woody Harrelson were very good; Ed Harris not so much. But the movie portrayed Palin as someone who had just had a full frontal lobotomy. I believe that Palin is not the sharpest bulb in the shed, but nobody could possibly be as stupid as they made her seem (didn't know why North and South Korea are different countries, had to be taught that Germany was the primary instigator in WWI and II, etc.). And McCain was played as this kind-hearted saint that had his campaign derailed by Palin's lunacy, and in the end was fearful of crossing Palin and incurring her wrath, which is just a bit hard to swallow. #7 isn't true though; throughout Palin was shown to be obsessed with Alaska and the opinions of the people there, and possbly even homesick. And the bolded part of #9 makes me not take the rest too seriously.

assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki

No, I did not. And I most likely will not vote for him this year either, although I try to keep an open mind. I do not understand the hyper-polarized 'you're with me or against me' extremist universe the 3rdnings of the world live in and the Fox news induced knee jerk reactions it produces. Thinking Bush is an illiterate dufus (which he is) does not preclude one from thinking Obama is a giant douche (because he is.)

You mean a politician said one thing to one group of people because he thought it is what that group of people wanted to hear and he thought it would help his career? I'm speechless and feel slightly dirty. I truly hope Obama is the first and last to do this or I am out of the whole politics thing altogether. But with Obama, I don't think his backtracking on campaign statememts were 'purposely premeditated' as you stated. I think it was more that he was a very young, junior politician who didn't yet have his political identity (remember that he was against mandatory health insurance during the campaign) or political seasoning. I always got the sense that his positions were more unintentionally fluid and it worked to his advantage in 2008. Anyway, as to the Bush quotes I posted earlier, it was just something I thought was funny. (And those quotes are funny. This is not a matter of opinion.) Not everything has to have an agenda attached to it.