Friday, October 29, 2004
"Voting Procedures Understood By People of Average Intelligence"
This report in from a contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy:
Your student is right: the ballots are not confusing. Yes, the numbers don't line up, some candidates are deleted, and in my voter booklet, the senate candidate race wasn't even part of the book, but just a loose sheet of paper.
Overall though, the concept is simple: find your candidate, find their number on the ballot; punch the hole. It blows my mind that people smart enough to complain about the ballot being a violation of their rights are too stupid to figure out what amounts to a voting inspired version of Chuck E. Cheese's Whack-A-Mole Game.
The urge to hype the conflict seems to have taken over the bulk of the news organizations. Perhaps the phenomenon is a result of self-selection - people who thrive on the breathless (oh! the horror!) reaction to each and every problem - people to whom all problems are equally problems - those who can make money or a reputation by stirring the pot.
I have seen this phenomenon in personal lives - expressed by manufacturing conflict or argument. I have chalked it up to the need for excitement - a type of adrenaline fix. Those of us who lead more sedate lives find all the hooplah disconcerting or amusing depending on our mood and just how close the "action" approaches our lives.
¶ 08:53 (0)comments
Your student is right: the ballots are not confusing. Yes, the numbers don't line up, some candidates are deleted, and in my voter booklet, the senate candidate race wasn't even part of the book, but just a loose sheet of paper.
Overall though, the concept is simple: find your candidate, find their number on the ballot; punch the hole. It blows my mind that people smart enough to complain about the ballot being a violation of their rights are too stupid to figure out what amounts to a voting inspired version of Chuck E. Cheese's Whack-A-Mole Game.
The urge to hype the conflict seems to have taken over the bulk of the news organizations. Perhaps the phenomenon is a result of self-selection - people who thrive on the breathless (oh! the horror!) reaction to each and every problem - people to whom all problems are equally problems - those who can make money or a reputation by stirring the pot.
I have seen this phenomenon in personal lives - expressed by manufacturing conflict or argument. I have chalked it up to the need for excitement - a type of adrenaline fix. Those of us who lead more sedate lives find all the hooplah disconcerting or amusing depending on our mood and just how close the "action" approaches our lives.
¶ 08:53 (0)comments
Thursday, October 28, 2004
This'll keep you going for days
From INDC a marvelous story of patriotism and courage that we just don't hear enough about.
¶ 22:33 (0)comments
¶ 22:33 (0)comments
Rowdy Yikes!
DailyRecycler highlights our choice for this coming Tuesday. Fits with my earlier post. W is a real guy. Edwards may be a wonderful husband, dad and lawyer - but it is very hard to accept him as "a heartbeat away" from leading the War on Terror.
¶ 14:01 (0)comments
¶ 14:01 (0)comments
And that reminds me . . . you're gonna kiss me first.
The previous post reminds me of the first moment when I decided to give W a chance. The story comes from Newsweek (August 7, 2000):
The most famous Bush convert was the late Bob Bullock, the crusty Democratic lieutenant governor [of Texas] who for many years was the most powerful politician in the state. Bullock was still skeptical of the governor in 1997 and told him at a meeting: "I'm gonna f--- you on that bill." Bush, who reads people extraordinarily well, came over and planted a big kiss on Bullock and said: "If you f--- me, you're gonna kiss me first." Bullock loved it, and became a close friend and campaign contributor to Bush. On his deathbed last year, Bullock told Bush he would make a great president.
I do respect people who make decisions and act on them. I admire competence - here illustrated by the audacious kiss. Who do you know who reads people so well? Who have you ever met that could pull this off? Wow.
¶ 13:39 (0)comments
The most famous Bush convert was the late Bob Bullock, the crusty Democratic lieutenant governor [of Texas] who for many years was the most powerful politician in the state. Bullock was still skeptical of the governor in 1997 and told him at a meeting: "I'm gonna f--- you on that bill." Bush, who reads people extraordinarily well, came over and planted a big kiss on Bullock and said: "If you f--- me, you're gonna kiss me first." Bullock loved it, and became a close friend and campaign contributor to Bush. On his deathbed last year, Bullock told Bush he would make a great president.
I do respect people who make decisions and act on them. I admire competence - here illustrated by the audacious kiss. Who do you know who reads people so well? Who have you ever met that could pull this off? Wow.
¶ 13:39 (0)comments
Gotta love this - Black Watch
I just love these stories. And, no, I don't expect that every affront is treated this way. But if you treat just a few of them like this, affronts come your way just a little less frequently.
¶ 13:26 (0)comments
¶ 13:26 (0)comments
Monday, October 25, 2004
Heal thyself
Factcheck.org has a problem of its own. The problem here is at the end: 75-20 with 38 democrats voting against.
Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.
¶ 13:51 (1)comments
Total intelligence spending is a classified figure, but was estimated at the time to be $27 billion per year. So, the cut Kerry proposed amounted to an estimated 3.7 percent -- hardly a proposal to "slash" expenditures. That measure was debated on the Senate floor and on Feb 10,1994 it was defeated 75-20 with 38 Democratic Senators voting against it.
¶ 13:51 (1)comments
Friday, October 22, 2004
An embarassment of riches
The Volokh Conspiracy has several posts on Prof. Snider's assignment (scroll all the way down for his list of "Topics on which there is, in my opinion, no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions and pseudo-science").
Even for someone teaching English 101, Prof. Snider has an unpracticed ear for the delightful nuance of the language. For instance, he uses the phrase "It is no secret" in place of the more accurate "my friends and I agree that." He poses "What can be done about the overpopulation of the earth[sic]?" as a topic without recognizing that the [human] population of the Earth can reasonably be described as insignificant (with respect to actual capacity of the planet) or as likely to begin a natural decline in about 45 years.
More obvious - from an English 100 point of view - is the ready answer to his proposed topic "What can be done about the apparent increase in abandoned babies?" One must first determine whether the 'apparent increase' is a real increase. But then, of course, one runs the risk of violating the tenet of academic freedom by the wanton introduction of actual fact into an argument.
The professor also taps into one of my pet peeves with his link to the "bipartisan web site: The Constitution Project ." The implication that 'bipartisan' covers all bases gets my hackles up - particularly when it is endorsed by someone who is supposed to be helping students learn how to think. There are more than two ways to skin a cat.
¶ 16:25 (0)comments
Even for someone teaching English 101, Prof. Snider has an unpracticed ear for the delightful nuance of the language. For instance, he uses the phrase "It is no secret" in place of the more accurate "my friends and I agree that." He poses "What can be done about the overpopulation of the earth[sic]?" as a topic without recognizing that the [human] population of the Earth can reasonably be described as insignificant (with respect to actual capacity of the planet) or as likely to begin a natural decline in about 45 years.
More obvious - from an English 100 point of view - is the ready answer to his proposed topic "What can be done about the apparent increase in abandoned babies?" One must first determine whether the 'apparent increase' is a real increase. But then, of course, one runs the risk of violating the tenet of academic freedom by the wanton introduction of actual fact into an argument.
The professor also taps into one of my pet peeves with his link to the "bipartisan web site: The Constitution Project ." The implication that 'bipartisan' covers all bases gets my hackles up - particularly when it is endorsed by someone who is supposed to be helping students learn how to think. There are more than two ways to skin a cat.
¶ 16:25 (0)comments
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Plus ca change . . .
The common lack of historical perspective is exposed in the Gantelope's left-handed exhortation to the French. Be sure to read the quote from a 1954 L A Times story.
¶ 16:44 (0)comments
¶ 16:44 (0)comments
ALCS - The Electoral College disenfranchises NYY
Iowahawk has a wonderful Electoral College post today. More on this later.
¶ 15:29 (0)comments
¶ 15:29 (0)comments
. . . so, anyway
INDC has a compelling entry today on the difficulty of achieving perfection in war-time decision making.
¶ 13:25 (0)comments
¶ 13:25 (0)comments
