jackie hayes

Which is exactly my point -- you only need a few examples, a few elitists, to write a story like this. But to extrapolate from that to all Dem voters is absurd, just like it would be absurd to extrapolate from Keyes. (Although I worry that Keyes isn't as far out as I thought, when Coburn and DeMint can get elected.)

I'm pretty sure the article doesn't say that, though some of the people it quotes get ugly. It's just not true that all Dems think that. There are plenty of people who say nasty things about Dem voters. A quick Google search turns up comments on a blog such as "A vote for Kerry is the same as saying it's ok to kill a baby." You have people like Keyes saying that voting for Obama is a "mortal sin." That doesn't imply everyone who votes Repub thinks that way.

You do agree though that the real economy has not done as well as "0 job loss" would suggest? I for one have a LOT of doubt that we would be in a depression. To me, the most convincing story for the Great Depression is that the Fed mishandled it. (This is the explanation that Milton Friedman gives.) The theory of monetary policy has come a LONG way since then, I don't think that would happen again. Plus, from a stimulative perspective, the Bush tax cuts were extremely ineffective. Business investment tax breaks, eg, would have been more useful Republican-friendly notion. Transfers to low-income individuals would have been more effective, too, though definitely not Repub-friendly. So much of the tax cuts went to the very rich (objective fact, I don't want to get into a values debate about this), and the rich tend to save at high rates (which implies that they spend less of the tax cut), so relatively little actually went into the real economy.

I've never heard of the "elitist poor", and the phrase sounds pretty funny to me. You say that all Dem voters are elitists who think that noone could disagree with them, except idiots. I could just as well say that Repub voters are all rednecks who think that noone could disagree with them, except immoral people. (I don't say that.) These are both absurd statements. There's a lot of heterogeneity on each side.

Moderates don't sell papers. I don't know about "your side". Historically, I've voted Republican. But if this election represents the face of Republicanism going forward, as it seems to, then yes, I'm changing sides.

Exactly -- you're saying that everyone who voted Democratic is an elitist who converses w/ their European friends while sipping a latte and reading Le Monde. Including people who live in housing projects, and in the poorer Latino neighborhoods, and union members who live in the other boroughs. Yeah, I'd call that stereotyping.

My point is that private employment reflects the real economy much better, and it's not doing as well as you say (you claimed 0 jobs lost). But to address your second argument... So every time the economy is primed for a job loss, the government should expand so that noone is unemployed? Yes, the government should let them be unemployed and let markets work. Republicans talk about markets, but their actions show how little trust they have in fact. This is not about the Fed. The Fed did the right thing, more or less. But they only act to stabilize the course of the economy, not to set that course.

Yeah, you're not stereotyping NYers at all... They're all just like the people in the article, right? If Kerry had won, there would be people (some in small towns, some not) who would be whining just as much. 'I don't know what's happening to our country, it's all going to hell. These big-government ( ) liberals just want all our kids to be indoctrinated in evolution by homosexuals. As if our high schools weren't already dangerously overrun by lesbians...' Thanks, heart and soul. Republicans who actually want to combat stereotyping should start in their own party, w/ this 'Elitists...' reaction. And Dems should shut up w/ all this 'Rednecks...' crap. Until I see that, I don't believe either side gives a f*** about having a serious discussion.

He got a little over $2 mil this past season, so it'll be whatever the arbitrator decides to give him. But I can't imagine he'd get much of a raise given the lack of playing time, plus the numbers he put up last season.

On a seasonally adjusted basis, private employment is still down 1.2 million jobs. So the loss of private jobs is made up for by the enormous growth in government spending. Go W.

B/c noone on the coasts has a heart or a soul? Or is this just "They are in the majority." Explain this.

You think Chicago is any different? Look at the vote totals there. Eastern seaboard, NYC, LA, crap -- the larger the city, the more Democratic. Why should I be impressed that the NYT found a few people in a city of millions who will say stupid things? In NYC, 'We're more in touch w/ other people.' In rural America, 'We're more in touch w/ God.' Yeah, thanks for the opinions. What happened to Sox fans? What happened to good old Iowa-bashing? We're losing our core values, people.

Maybe Montreal is still smitten with Sox busts (the Jeff Liefer syndrome), in which case it wouldn't be a bad deal. But he's barely pitched the past 2 seasons, so he's not worth any more than that. There'd probably be a betting line in Vegas on the success of his physical.

It felt that way, but it's not really true. I started a thread on this topic late in the season, and I think Jason had something similar in his blog, about how often the Sox scored 3 runs or fewer compared to other teams. Even in the second half, we didn't have a low-scoring offense more often than other teams.

Our offense sucked??? Even in the second half we scored runs nearly as well as anyone, except the Red Sox and perhaps the Yankees. How can you look at the number of runs scored and then our team era and say that our offense was the problem?

Just b/c they haven't done so in the past doesn't mean they won't do so now. I don't doubt that they'll pick up a cheaper option, too. (Can you imagine Loaiza on the Twins?) But you're right -- there's not much there besides Santana and Silva, plus some prayers for Kyle Lohse (we've all got our Garlands). At that point, I can't imagine a team that wouldn't say to itself that it needs another bona fide starter. And obviously, they have the budget to pick up someone, since they're offering Radke decent money. The Twins desperately need a good staff, b/c that offense (while decent) cannot carry a team. So I'm guessing need trumps tradition.

But if we take him away from the Twins they'll just go after someone else in the fa market. If we pay more than Radke's value, and they pick up someone else at fair value, I'll think they beat us on that deal. I'd rather we ignore the fact that he's a Twin and just try to find the best fa deals, whoever they are. And that price sounds steep to me, although I'm willing to be convinced that he's worth it.

I was trying to find a William Jennings Bryan concession speech, b/c there hasn't been a better speaker/writer to run for president since Lincoln. And I ran across an article that some may find interesting, here. (This is actually the Google cache, since the article seems to be missing from the original location, here.) Supposedly the tradition started when WJB conceded in a telegram.

Right, I agree. My point is, people spent time crafting these amendments and getting them put up as resolutions. Isn't that just a waste of time if there's no substantive difference whatsoever? What I'm getting at is that I think these amendments are about more than the use of one word or another. I don't think the authors and supporters of these amendments would have taken the time to change a word for aesthetic purposes. IMO they show that any "civil union" legislation has a snowball's chance of getting passed.

Seems like the most natural thing to do. Btw, ChiSoxyGirl, marriage is hardly just a religious institution anymore. It's a social and legal one, too. Lots of nonreligious people get married, after all. Looking at the fights between the government and the rebel polygamous Mormon groups, I would go so far as to say that in the US, its social and legal identities are more important than its religious identity.

Well, if that were effected, if the rights & priviledges were made exactly the same, why not just call it marriage? If the institutions are legally identical, why go to all this trouble over exactly what word is used in the text of the law? Having a constitutional amendment over semantics is just a waste of time. It's not like many people are going to get all aflutter just b/c they see "marriage" used generally in Michigan Statute 551.271, instead of "marriage or civil union".

Why do you say that? I think we should be able to outbid NY, but Arizona seems to really want Posada (judging by the trade deadline rumors this past season).

Agreed. You get so few chances to land a pitcher like RJ, not just a top 5 pitcher in the game today, but one of the most dominant pitchers over my lifetime. From a fan's perspective, I'd love the move -- of course there's injury risk, but there's no pitcher available that has a higher ceiling. And from KW's perspective, I think you make the deal -- even if you trade off parts of the future, you know you don't have many more chances. Hopefully, RJ's perspective isn't too unfriendly... Big gamble, big price (I can't see Arizona doing the deal w/o one of the Sox's 3 best prospects), but I think this one's worth it.

Much different issue. That had to do w/ one particular religion. Had Kennedy been Baptist, noone would have questioned his religious views.

I think you mean, b/c rural votes would become less important than they are now, rural voters would be less interested in voting. But if that effect partly determines voter turnout, the switch would increase large state voter turnout. How do you know what the balance would be?